~ 
Aol deet 
aude 


‘p* ale - 
aie nie ee 
Ce tie 





i “si ‘ih J rere is +k ter Ones | 
i) a ivi) . AOU Gal tL 
7] : a 3 5 oo . Ris a 4 a drut rae “My velanas writ tay 


J “ é ” = 
‘72% on ae 


f 

4. } d Pi g 

iti: “abl 
fe Wea 

a We 

F / Si ; 

Sa, A 

as oes 

Hie D } t 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 


https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic46robe 








FIRSTOSPISTLEOe ST PAUL 
TO 4HE CORINTHIANS 


The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved. 


Eioe PACE 


—$—— 


More than fourteen years ago I promised to Dr. Plummer, 
Editor of the “International Critical Commentary,” an 
edition of this Epistle, of which I had the detailed 
knowledge gained by some years of teaching. Almost 
immediately, however, a change of work imposed upon me 
new duties in the course of which my predominant 
interests were claimed, in part by administrative work 
which curtailed opportunities for study or writing, in part 
by studies other than exegetical. 

I had hoped that in my present position this diversion 
of time and attention would prove less exacting; but the 
very opposite has been the case. Accordingly my task in 
preparing for publication the work of past years upon the 
Epistle has suffered from sad lack of continuity, and has 
not, with the exception of a few sections, been carried 
beyond its earlier chapters. 

That the Commentary appears, when it does and as it 
does, is due to the extraordinary kindness of my old 
friend, tutor at Oxford, and colleague at Durham, Dr. 
Plummer. His generous patience as Editor is beyond any 
recognition I can express: he has, moreover, supplied my 
shortcomings by taking upon his shoulders the greater 
part of the work. Of the Introduction, also, he has written 
important sections; the Index is entirely his work. 

While, however, a reader versed in documentary 
criticism may be tempted to assign each nuance to its 


several source, we desire each to accept general responsi- 
vii 


Vili PREFACE 


bility as contributors, while to Dr. Plummer falls that of 
Editor and, I may add, the main share of whatever merit 
the volume may possess. 

It is hoped that amidst the exceptional number of 
excellent commentaries which the importance of the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians has called forth, the present 
volume may yet, with God’s blessing, have a usefulness 
of its own to students of St Paul 

A. EXON : 
EXETER, 
Conversion of St Paul, 
IgII. 


COM REN ls 


+ 
INTRODUCTION : 
§ I. CORINTH ° . . ° ° 
§ II. AUTHENTICITY : 4 . 
§$ III. OCCASION AND PLAN : . 
Analysis of the Epistle ° ° : 
$:1V. PLACE AND Date . 


Aretas to the Apostolic Geraci 


. XXVil 
XXVill 


Apostolic Council to the End of Residence at 


Ephesus . : 
From Festus back to 1 Goeuniane: 
Resultant Scheme 


 toghie 
. BONG 
eX 


Bearing of St Paul’s Movements on the ucsuen 


of Date . : E C 

Table of Pauline Chuonaiees : - 

§ V. DocTRINE : : . 
The Apostle’s Beleucd to Christ . . 

The Resurrection . = F 

The Person of Christ : : - 

The Christian Life. - “ 

The Collective Work of the Gharcks ' 

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. . 


§ VI. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE 


Words peculiar to 1 Corinthians in the N.T. 


XXXl 
XXXlll 


XXX1V 
XXXIV 
XXXVI 
XXXVIll 
XXXVIil 
XXXIX 
Ex; 


« xivi 
xlix 


Words peculiar to 1 Corinthians in the Pauline 


Epistles . 


Phrases peculiar to 1 Cosuthaen in ie N. T. 


Quotations from the O.T. . : 4 


ix 


< li 
ee lt 
Sir 


CONTENTS 


§. Vil. “fear 4 


General Features 
The Pauline Epistles 


Authorities for this Epistle . 


Illustrative Readings 


§ VIII. COMMENTARIES 


Patristic and Scholastic 


Modern ~ 
COMMENTARY - 2 
INDEX : 

General . . 


Greek Words A 
Latin and English Words 


INT ROM UC RION 


ap 


§ I. CORINTH. 


WuatT we know from other sources respecting Corinth in St 
Paul’s day harmonizes well with the impression which we receive 
from 1 Corinthians. The extinction of the ¢otius Graeciae lumen, 
as Cicero (Pro lege Manil. 5) calls the old Greek city of Corinth, 
by the Roman consul L. Mummius Achaicus, 146 B.c., was only 
temporary. Exactly a century later Julius Caesar founded a 
new city on the old site as Colonia Julia Cortinthus.* The re- 
building was a measure of military precaution, and little was 
done to show that there was any wish to revive the glories of 
Greece (Finlay, Greece under the Romans, p. 67). The inhabi- 
tants of the new city were not Greeks but Italians, Caesar’s 
veterans and freedmen. ‘The descendants of the inhabitants 
who had survived the destruction of the old city did not return 
to the home of their parents, and Greeks generally were for a 
time somewhat shy of taking up their abode in the new city. 
Plutarch, who was still a boy when St Paul was in Greece, seems 
hardly to have regarded the new Corinth as a Greek town. 
Festus says that the colonists were called Corinthienses, to dis- 
tinguish them from the old Corinthiz. But such distinctions do 
not seem to have been maintained. By the time that St Paul 
visited the city there were plenty of Greeks among the inhabi- 
tants, the current language was in the main Greek, and the 
descendants of the first Italian colonists had become to a large 
extent Hellenized. 

The mercantile prosperity, which had won for the old city 
such epithets as advetds (Hom. Z7/. ii. 570; Pind. Fragg. 87, 244), 
evdaipwv (Hdt. ili. 52), and oAPra (Pind. O/. xiii. 4; Thue. i. 13), 
and which during the century of desolation had in some degree 
passed to Delos, was quickly recovered by the new city, because 
it was the result of an extraordinarily advantageous position, which 
remained unchanged. Corinth, both old and new, was situated 

* Other titles found on coins and in inscriptions are Laus Juli Corinthus 


and Colonia Julia Corinthus Augusta. 
xi 


xii INTRODUCTION 


on the ‘bridge’ or causeway between two seas ; movTOU yepup” 
dxdpavros (Pind. Vem. vi. 67), yépuvpav rovridda rpd KopivOov 
retxewv (Jsth. iii. 35). Like Ephesus, it was both on the main com- 
mercial route between East and West and also ata point at which 
various side-routes met the main one. The merchandise which 
came to its markets, and which passed through it on its way to 
other places, was enormous; and those who passed through it 
commonly stayed awhile for business or pleasure. ‘This 
bimaris Corinthus was a natural halting-place on the journey 
between Rome and the East, as we see in the case of S. Paul 
and his companions, and of Hegesippus (Eus. /.£. iv. 22). So 
also it is called the zepiraros or ‘lounge’ of Greece” (Lightfoot, 
S. Clement of Rome, i. pp. 9, 10). The rhetorician Aristeides 
calls it ‘‘a palace of Poseidon”; it was rather the market-place 
or the Vanity Fair of Greece, and even of the Empire. 

It added greatly to its importance, and doubtless to its 
prosperity, that Corinth was the metropolis of the Roman 
province of Achaia, and the seat of the Roman_proconsul 
(Acts xviii. 12). In more than one particular it became the 
leading city in Greece. It was proud of its political priority, 
proud of its commercial supremacy, proud also of its mental 
activity and acuteness, although in this last particular it was 
surpassed, and perhaps greatly surpassed, by Athens. It may 
have been for this very reason that Athens was one of the last 
Hellenic, cities to be converted to Christianity. But just as the 
leaders Of, ‘thought there saw nothing sublime or convincing in 
the doctrine which St Paul taught (Acts xvii. 18, 32), so the 
political ruler at Corinth failed to see that the question which 
he quite rightly refused to decide as a Roman magistrate, was 
the crucial question of the age (Acts xviii. 14-16). Neither 
Gallio nor any other political leader in Greece saw that the 
Apostle was the man of the future. They made the common 
mistake of men of the world, who are apt ‘to think that the 
world which they know so well is the whole world (Renan, 
S. Paul, p. 225). 

In yet another particular Corinth was first in Hellas. The 
old city had been the most licentious city in Greece, and 
perhaps the most licentious city in the Empire. As numerous 
expressions and a variety of well-known passages testify, the 
name of Corinth had been a by-word for the grossest profligacy, 
especially in connexion with the worship of Aphrodite Pande- 
mos.* Aphrodite was worshipped elsewhere in Hellas, but 


* Kopw6idterbar, Kopiv6la xdpn, Kop. mais: ob mavrds dvdpds és KépwBov 
&c8’ & mois, a proverb which Horace (£9. 1. xvii. 36) reproduces, mon cuivis 
homini contingit adire Corinthum. Other references in Renan, p. 213, and 
Farrar, St Paul, i. pp. 557 f. 


INTRODUCTION xiii 


nowhere else do we find the tiepddovAo. as a permanent element 
in the worship, and in old Corinth there had been a thousand 
of these. Such worship was not Greek but Oriental, an im- 
portation from the cult of the Phoenician Astarte; but it is 
not certain that this worship of Aphrodite had been revived 
in all its former monstrosity in the new city. Pausanias, who 
visited Corinth about a century later than St Paul, found it 
tich in temples and idols of various kinds, Greek and foreign ; 
but he calls the temple of Aphrodite a vaidiov (vill. vi. 21): 
see Bachmann, p. 5. It is therefore possible that we ought 
not to quote the thousand tepodovAo in the temple of Aphrodite 
on Acrocorinthus as evidence of the immorality of Corinth in 
St Paul’s day. Nevertheless, even if that pestilent element had 
been reduced in the new city, there is enough evidence to show 
that Corinth still deserved a very evil reputation ; and the letters 
which St Paul wrote to the Church there, and from Corinth to 
other Churches, tell us a good deal. 

It may be doubted whether the notorious immorality of 
Corinth had anything to do with St Paul’s selecting it as a 
sphere of missionary work. It was the fact of its being an 
imperial and cosmopolitan centre that attracted him. The 
march of the Empire must everywhere be followed by the 
march of the Gospel. The Empire had raised Corinth from 
the death which the ravages of its own legions had inflicted 
and had made it a centre of government and of trade. The 
Gospel must raise Corinth from the death of heathenism and 
make it a centre for the diffusion of discipline and truth. In 
few other places were the leading elements of the Empire so 
well represented as in Corinth: it was at once Roman, Oriental, 
and Greek. The Oriental element was seen, not only in its 
religion, but also in the number of Asiatics who settled in it or 
frequently visited it for purposes of commerce. Kenchreae is 
said to have been chiefly Oriental in population. Among these 
settlers from the East were many Jews,* who were always 
attracted to mercantile centres; and the number of them must 
have been considerably increased when the edict of Claudius 
expelled the Jews from Rome (Acts xviil. 2; Suet. Claud. 25). 
In short, Corinth was the Empire in miniature ;—the Empire 
reduced to a single State, but with some of the worst features 
of heathenism intensified, as Rom. i. 21-32, which was written 
in Corinth, plainly shows. Any one who could make his voice 
heard in Corinth was addressing a cosmopolitan and representa- 
tive audience, many of whom would be sure to go elsewhere, and 


* Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 36; cf. Justin, 77y. 1. It is unfortunate that 
neither the edict of Claudius nor the proconsulship of Gallio can be dated 
with accuracy. 


xiv INTRODUCTION 


might carry with them what they had heard. We need not wonder 
that St Paul thought it worth while to go there, and (after receiv- 
ing encouragement from the Lord, Acts xviii. g) to remain there 
a year and a half. Nor need we wonder that, having succeeded 
in finding the ‘ people’ (Aads) whom the Lord had already marked 
as His own, like a new Israel (Acts xviii. 10), and having suc- 
ceeded in planting a Church there, he afterwards felt the keenest 
interest in its welfare and the deepest anxiety respecting it. 

It was from Athens that St Paul came to Corinth, and the 
transition has been compared to that of passing from residence 
in Oxford to residence in London; that ought to mean from 
the old unreformed Oxford, the home of lost causes and of 
expiring philosophies, to the London of our own age. The 
difference in miles between Oxford and London is greater than 
that between Athens and Corinth; but, in St Paul’s day, the 
difference in social and intellectual environment was perhaps 
greater than that which has distinguished the two English cities 
in any age. The Apostle’s work in the two Greek cities was 
part of his great work of adapting Christianity to civilized 
Europe. In Athens he met with opposition and contempt 
(Acts xvii. 18, 32), and he came on to Corinth in much 
depression and fear (1 Cor. ii. 3); and not until he had been 
encouraged by the heavenly vision and the experience of con- 
siderable success did he think that he would be justified in 
remaining at Corinth instead of returning to the more hopeful 
field in Macedonia. During the year and a half that he was 
there he probably made missionary excursions in the neigh- 
bourhood, and with success: 2 Corinthians is addressed ‘unto 
the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints 
which are in the whole of Achaia.’ 

So far as we know, he was the first Christian who ever 
entered that city ; he was certainly the first to preach the Gospel 
there. This he claims for himself with great earnestness 
(iii. 6, 10, iv. 15), and he could not have made such a claim, 
if those whom he was addressing knew that it was not true. 
Some think that Aquila and Priscilla were Christians before 
they reached Corinth. But if that was so, St Luke would pro- 
bably have known it, and would have mentioned the fact; for 
their being of the same belief would have been a stronger reason 
for the Apostle’s taking up his abode with them than their being 
of the same trade, 70 épuorexvov (Acts xviii. 3).— On the other 


* This attitude continued long after the Apostle’s departure. Fora century 
cr two Athens was perhaps the chief seat of opposition to the Gospel. 

+ It is possible that this is one of the beloved physician’s medical words. 
Doctors are said to have spoken of one another as 6uérexvot (Hobart, Jed. 
Lang. of St Luke, p. 239). 


INTRODUCTION XV 


hand, if they were converted by St Paul in Corinth, would not 
either he or St Luke have mentioned so important a success,” 
and would not they be among those whom he baptized himself? 
If they were already Christians, it may easily have been from 
them that he learnt so much about the individual Christians 
who are mentioned in Rom. xvi. The Apostle’s most important 
Jewish convert that is known to us is Crispus, the ruler of the 
Corinthian synagogue (Acts xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 14). Titius or 
Titus Justus may have been his first success among the Roman 
proselytes (Acts xviii. 7; Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller, p. 256), 
or he may have been a Gentile holding allegiance to the syna- 
gogue, but not a circumcised proselyte (Zahn, Zxtr. to VT, 
i. p. 266). Acts xvili. 7 means that the Apostle taught in his 
house, instead of in the synagogue; not that he left the house 
of Aquila and Priscilla to live with Titus Justus.* About 
Stephanas (1 Cor. xvi. 15, i. 16) we are doubly in doubt, whether 
he was a Gentile or a Jew, and whether he was converted and 
baptized in Athens or in Corinth. He was probably a Gentile; 
that he was a Corinthian convert is commonly assumed, but it 
is by no means certain. 

A newly created city, with a very mixed population of Italians, 
Greeks, Orientals, and adventurers from all parts, and without 
any aristocracy or old families, was likely to be democratic and 
impatient of control; and conversion to Christianity would not 
at once, if at all, put an end to this independent spirit. Cer- 
tainly there was plenty of it when St Paul wrote. We find 
evidence of it in the claim of each convert to choose his own 
leader (i. ro-iv. 21), in the attempt of women to be as free 
as men in the congregation (xi. 5-15, xiv. 34, 35), and in the 
desire of those who had spiritual gifts to exhibit them in public 
without regard to other Christians (xil., xiv.). 

Of the evils which are common in a community whose chief 
aim is commercial success, and whose social distinctions are 
mainly those of wealth, we have traces in the litigation about 
property in heathen courts (vi. 1-11), in the repeated mention 
of the wAecovéxtys as a common kind of offender (v. 10, 11, 
vi. 10), and in the disgraceful conduct of the wealthy at the 
Lord’s Supper (xi. 17-34). 

The conceited self-satisfaction of the Corinthians as to their 
intellectual superiority is indicated by ironical hints and serious 
warnings as to the possession of yv@ous (viii. 1, 7, 10, I1, 


* Justus, as a surname for Jews or proselytes, meant (like Sikasos in 
Luke i. 6) ‘careful in the observance of the Law.’ It was common in the 
case of Jews (Acts i. 23; Col. iv. 11). Josephus had a son so called, and he 
tells us of another Justus who wrote about the Jewish war (V7¢a, 1, 9, 65). 
It is said to be frequent in Jewish inscriptions, 


xvi INTRODUCTION 


xiii. 2, 8) and godéa (i. 17, ili. 19), by the long section which 
treats of the false and the true wisdom (i. 18-ili. 4), and by the 
repeated rebukes of their inflated self-complacency (iv. 6, 18, 19, 
Ve 2; Ville © 5 Ch. “xiii, 4). 

But the feature in the new city which has made the deepest 
mark on the Epistle is its abysmal immorality. There is not 
only the condemnation of the Corinthians’ attitude towards the 
monstrous case of incest (v. 1-13) and the solemn warning 
against thinking lightly of sins of the flesh (vi. 12-20), but also 
the nature of the reply to the Corinthians’ letter (vii. 1-xi, 1). 
The whole treatment of their marriage-problems and of the right 
behaviour with regard to idol-meats is influenced by the thought 
of the manifold and ceaseless temptations to impurity with which 
the new converts to Christianity were surrounded, and which 
made such an expression as ‘the Church of God which is at 
Corinth’ (i. 2), as Bengel says, /aetum et ingens paradoxon. And 
the majority of the converts—probably the very large majority— 
had been heathen (xii. 2), and therefore had been accustomed 
to think lightly of abominations from which converts from 
Judaism -had always been free. Anxiety about these Gentile 
Christians is conspicuous throughout the First Epistle; but at 
the time when the Second was written, especially the last four 
chapters, it was Jewish Christians that were giving him most 
trouble. In short, Corinth, as we know it from other sources, 
is clearly reflected in the letter before us. 

That what we know about Corinth and the Apostle from 
Acts is reflected in the letter will be seen when it is examined 
in detail; and it is clear that the writer of Acts does not derive 
his information from the letter, for he tells us much more than 
the letter does. As Schleiermacher pointed out long ago, the 
personal details at the beginning and end of 1 and 2 Corinthians 
supplement and illuminate what is told in Acts, and it is clear 
that each writer takes his own line independently of the other 
(Bachmann, p. 12). 


§ Il. AUTHENTICITY. 


_ It is not necessary to spend much time upon the discussion 
of this question. Both the external and the internal evidence 
for the Pauline authorship are so strong that those who attempt 
to show that the Apostle was not the writer succeed chiefly in 
proving their own incompetence as critics. Subjective criticism 
of a highly speculative kind does not merit many detailed 
replies, when it is in opposition to abundant evidence of the 
most solid character. The captious objections which have been 


INTRODUCTION XVii 


urged against one or other, or even against all four, of the great 
Epistles of St Paul, by Bruno Bauer (1850-1852), and more 
recently by Loman, Pierson, Naber, Edwin Johnson, Meyboom, 
van Manen, Rudolf Steck, and others, have been sufficiently 
answered by Kuenen, Scholten, Schmiedel, Zahn, Gloél, Wrede, 
and Lindemann; and the English reader will find all that he 
needs on the subject in Knowling, Ze Witness of the Epistles, 
ch. il., or in Zhe Testimony of St Paul to Christ, lect. xxiv. and 
passim (see Index). But the student of 1 Corinthians can spend 
his time better than in perusing replies to utterly untenable 
objections. More than sixty years ago, F. C. Baur said of the 
four chief Epistles, that ‘‘they bear so incontestably the char- 
acter of Pauline originality, that there is no conceivable ground 
for the assertion of critical doubts in their case” (Pau/us, Stuttg. 
1845, li. Lznlect., Eng. tr. i. p. 246). And with regard to the 
arguments which have been urged against these Epistles since 
Baur’s day, we may adopt the verdict of Schmiedel, who, after 
examining a number of these objections, concludes thus: “Ina 
word, until better reasons are produced, one may really trust 
oneself to the conviction that one has before one writings of 
Paul” (Hand-Commentar sum NV.T., i. i. p. 51). 

The external evidence in support of Pauline authorship in 
the fullest sense is abundant and unbroken from the first century 
down to our own day. It begins, at the latest, with a formal 
appeal to 1 Corinthians as ‘‘the letter of the blessed Paul, the 
Apostle” by Clement of Rome about a.p. 95 (Cor 47), the 
earliest example in literature of a New Testament writer being 
quoted by name. And it is possible that we have still earlier 
evidence than that. In the Epistle of Barnabas iv. 11 we have 
words which seem to recall 1 Cor. ili. 1, 16, 18; and in the 
Didache x. 6 we have papav a6a, enforcing a warning, as in 
1 Cor. xvi. 22. But in neither case do the words fvove acquaint- 
ance with our Epistle; and, moreover, the date of these two 
documents is uncertain: some would place both of them later 
than 95 A.D. It is quite certain that Ignatius and Polycarp 
knew 1 Corinthians, and it is highly probable that Hermas did. 
“Tgnatius must have known this Epistle almost by heart. 
Although there are no quotations (in the strictest sense, with 
mention of the source), echoes of its language and thought 
pervade the whole of his writings in such a manner as to leave 
no doubt whatever that he was acquainted with the First Epistle 
to the Corinthians” (Zhe .7. in the Apostolic Fathers, 1905, 
p. 67). We find in the Epistles of Ignatius what seem to be 
echoes of 1 Cor. i. 7, 10, 18, 20, 24, 30, ll. 10, 14, lll. I, 2, IO— 
BG, £6, iv. 3,4) V..7, Vi. 9, 10, Thy VilitO,e2 4) 20, 1x. 05, 272 eral 
17, Xli. 12, xv. 8-10, 45, 47, 58, xvi. 18; and a number of these, 


b 


XVill INTRODUCTION 


being quite beyond dispute, give increase of probability to the 
rest. In Polycarp there are seven such echoes, two of which (to 
1 Cor. vi. 2, 9) are quite certain, and a third (to xiii. 13) highly 
probable. In the first of these (Pol. xi. 2), Paul is mentioned, 
but not this Epistle. The passage in Hermas (Mand. iv. 4) 
resembles 1 Cor. vil. 39, 40 so closely that reminiscence is more 
probable than mere coincidence. Justin Martyr, about A.D. 147, 
quotes from 1 Cor. xi. 19 (Z7y.. 35), and Athenagoras, about 
A.D. 177, quotes part of xv. 55 as kara Tov amdarodov (De Res. 
Mort. 18). In Irenaeus there are more than 60 quotations ; in 
Clement of Alexandria, more than 130; in Tertullian, more than 
400, counting verses separately. Basilides certainly knew it, and 
Marcion admitted it to his very select canon. ‘This brief state- 
ment by no means exhausts all the evidence of the two centuries 
subsequent to the writing of the Epistle, but it is sufficient to 
show how substantial the external evidence is. 

The internal evidence is equally satisfactory. The document, 
in spite of its varied contents, is harmonious in character and 
language. It is evidently the product of a strong and original 
mind, and is altogether worthy of an Apostle. When tested by 
comparison with other writings of St Paul, or with Acts, or with 
other writings in the N.T., we find so many coincidences, most 
of which must be undesigned, that we feel confident that neither 
invention, nor mere chance, nor these two combined, would be 
a sufficient explanation. The only hypothesis that will explain 
these coincidences is that we are dealing with a genuine letter of 
the Apostle of the Gentiles. And it has already been pointed 
out how well the contents of the letter harmonize with what we 
know of Corinth during the lifetime of St Paul. 

The integrity of 1 Corinthians has been questioned with as 
much boldness as its authenticity, and with as little success. On 
quite insufficient, and (in some cases) trifling, or even absurd, 
grounds, some sections, verses, and parts of verses, have been 
suspected of being interpolations, e.g. xi. 16, 19 b, 23-28, xii. 2, 
13, parts of xiv. 5 and 10, and the whole of 13, xv. 23-28, 45. 
The reasons for suspecting smaller portions are commonly better 
than those for suspecting longer ones, but none are sufficient to 
warrant rejection. Here and there we are in doubt about a 
word, as Xpiorot (i. 8), Inood (iv. 17), judy (v. 4), and ra vy 
(x. 20), but there is probably no verse or whole clause that is an 
interpolation. Others again have conjectured that our Epistle is 
made up of portions of two, or even three, letters, laid together 
in strata; and this conjecture is sometimes combined with the 
hypothesis that portions of the letter alluded to in v. g are 
imbedded in our r Corinthians. Thus, iii. 10-23, vii. 17-24, 
ix. I-X. 22, X. 25-30, xiv. 34-36, xv. I-55, are supposed to be 


INTRODUCTION xix 


fragments of this first letter. An hypothesis of this kind 
naturally involves the supposition that there are a number of 
interpolations which have been made in order to cement the 
fragments of the different letters together. These wild con- 
jectures may safely be disregarded. There is no trace of them 
in any of the four great Uncial MSS. which contain the whole 
Epistle (S ABD), or in any Version. We have seen that 
Ignatius shows acquaintance with every chapter, with the possible 
exception of viil., xi., xiii, xiv. Irenaeus quotes from every 
chapter, excepting iv., xiv., and xvi. Tertullian goes through it 
to the end of xv. (Adv. Marc. v. 5-10), and he quotes from xvi. 
The Epistle reads quite intelligibly and smoothly as we have it ; 
and it does not follow that, because it would read still more 
smoothly if this or that passage were ejected, therefore the 
Epistle was not written as it has come down to us. As Jiilicher 
remarks, “ what is convenient is not always right.”* Till better 
reasons are produced for rearranging it, or for rejecting parts of 
it, we may be content to read it as being still in the form in 
which the Apostle dictated it. 


§ III. OCCASION AND PLAN. 


The Occasion of 1 Corinthians is patent from the Epistle 
itself. ‘Two things induced St Paul to write. (1) During his 
long stay at Ephesus the Corinthians had written to him, asking 
certain questions, and perhaps also mentioning certain things as 
grievances. (2) Information of a very disquieting kind respect- 
ing the condition of the Corinthian Church had reached the 
Apostle from various sources. Apparently, the latter was the 
stronger reason of the two; but either of them, even without 
the other, would have caused him to write. 

Since his departure from Corinth, after spending eighteen 
months in founding a Church there, a great deal had happened 
in the young community. The accomplished Alexandrian Jew 
Apollos, ‘ mighty in the Scriptures,’ who had been well instructed 
in Christianity by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts xviii. 24, 26) at 
Ephesus, came and began to preach the Gospel, following (but, 
seemingly, with greater display of eloquence) in the footsteps of 
St Paul. Other teachers, less friendly to the Apostle, and with 
leanings towards Judaism, also began to work. Ina short time 
the infant Church was split into parties, each party claiming this 
er that teacher as its leader, but, in each case, without the 
chosen leader giving any encouragement to this partizanship 


* Recent Introductions to the N.T. (Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Gregory, Barth, 
Weiss, Zahn) treat the integrity of 1 Corinthians as certain. 


xx INTRODUCTION 


(i. 10, 11). It is usual to attribute these dissensions to that 
love of faction which is so conspicuous in all Greek history, and 
which was the ruin of so many Greek states ; and no doubt there 
is truth in this suggestion. But we must remember that Corinth 
at this time was scarcely half Greek. The greater part of the 
population consisted of the children and grandchildren of Italian 
colonists, who were still only imperfectly Hellenized, supple- 
mented by numerous Orientals, who were perhaps scarcely 
Hellenized at all. The purely Greek element in the population 
was probably quite the smallest of the three. Nevertheless, it 
was the element which was moulding the other two, and there- 
fore Greek love of faction may well have had something to do 
with the parties which so quickly sprang up in the new Corinthian 
Church. But at any other prosperous city on the Mediterranean, 
either in Italy or in Gaul, we should probably have had the same 
result. In these cities, with their mobile, eager, and excitable 
populations, crazes of some kind are not only a common feature, 
but almost a social necessity. ‘There must be something or 
somebody to rave about, and either to applaud or to denounce, 
in order to give zest to life. And this craving naturally generates 
cliques and parties, consisting of those who approve, and those 
who disapprove, of some new pursuits or persons. The pursuits 
or the persons may be of quite trifling importance. That matters 
little: what is wanted is something to dispute about and take 
sides about. As Renan says (S¢ Paul, p. 374), let there be two 
preachers, or two doctors, in one of the small towns in Southern 
Europe, and at once the inhabitants take sides as to which is 
the better of the two. The two preachers, or the two doctors, 
may be on the best of terms: that in no way hinders their 
names from being made a party-cry and the signal for vehement 
dissensions. 

After a stay of a year and six months, St Paul crossed from 
Corinth to Ephesus with Priscilla and Aquila, and went on with- 
out them to Jerusalem (Acts xviii. 11, 18, 19, 21). Thence he 
went to Galatia, and returned in the autumn to Ephesus. The 
year in which this took place may be 50, or 52, or 54 A.D. 
Excepting the winter months, intercourse between Corinth and 
Ephesus was always frequent, and in favourable weather the 
crossing might be made in a week, or even less. It was natural, 
therefore, that the Apostle during his three years at Ephesus 
should receive frequent news of his converts in Corinth. We 
know of only one definite source of information, namely, members 
of the household of a lady named Chloe (i. 11), who brought news 
about the factions and possibly other troubles: but no doubt 
there were other persons who came with tidings from Corinth. 
Those who were entrusted with the letter from the Corinthians 


INTRODUCTION XXl 


to the Apostle (see on xvi. 17) would tell him a great deal. 
Apollos, now at Ephesus (xvi. 12), would do the same. The 
condition of things which Chloe’s people reported was of so 
disturbing a nature that the Apostle at once wrote to deal with 
the matter, and he at the same time answered the questions 
which the Corinthians had raised in their letter. As will be seen 
from the Plan given below, these two reasons for writing, namely, 
reports of serious evils at Corinth, and questions asked by the 
converts themselves, cover nearly all, if not quite all, of what we 
find in our Epistle. There may, however, be a few topics which 
were not prompted by either of them, but are the spontaneous 
outcome of the Apostle’s anxious thoughts about the Corinthian 
Church, See Bney.. Brit, vith ed. arts‘ Bible? ip. 8733 “arts 
‘Corinthians,’ pp. 151 f. 

It is quite certain that our 1 Corinthians is not the first letter 
which the Apostle wrote to the Church of Corinth; and it is 
probable that the earlier letter (v. 9) is wholly lost. Some critics, 
however, think that part of it survives in 2 Cor. vi. 14—vii. 1, an 
hypothesis which has not found very many supporters. The 
question of there being yet another letter, which was written 
between the writing of our twe Epistles, and which probably 
survives, almost in its entirety, in 2 Cor. x. I-xili. 10, is a 
question which belongs to the Introduction to that Epistle, and 
need not be discussed here. 

But there is another question, in which both Epistles are 
involved. Fortunately nothing that is of great importance in 
either Epistle depends upon the solution of it, for no solution 
finds anything approaching to general assent. It has only an 
indirect connexion with the occasion and plan of our Epistle ; 
but this will be a convenient place for discussing it. It relates 
to the hypothesis of a second visit of St Paul to Corinth, a visit 
which was very brief, painful, and unsatisfactory, and which 
(perhaps because of its distressing character) is not recorded in 
Acts. Did any such visit take place during the Apostle’s three 
years at Ephesus? If so, did it take place before or after the 
sending of 1 Corinthians? We have thus three possibilities with 
regard to this second visit of St Paul to Corinth, which was so 
unlike the first in being short, miserable, and without any good 
results. (1) It took place before 1 Corinthians was written. 
(2) It took place after that Epistle was written. (3) It never 
took place at all. Each one of these hypotheses involves one in 
difficulties, and yet one of them must be true. 

Let us take (3) first. If that could be shown to be correct, 
there would be no need to discuss either of the other two. 

As has already been pointed out, the silence of Acts is in no 
way surprising, especially when we remember how much of the 


Xxli INTRODUCTION 


life of St Paul (2 Cor. xi. 23-28) is left unrecorded by St Luke. 
If the silence of Acts is regarded as an objection, it is more 
than counter-balanced by the antecedent probability that, during 
his three years’ stay in Ephesus, the Apostle would visit the 
Corinthians again. The voyage was a very easy one. It was 
St Paul’s practice in missionary work to go over the ground a 
second time (Acts xv. 36, 41, xviii. 23) ; and the intense interest in 
the condition of the Corinthian Church which these two Epistles 
exhibit renders it somewhat unlikely that the writer of them 
would spend three years within a week’s sail of Corinth, without 
paying the Church another visit. 

But these a frvzori considerations are accompanied by direct 
evidence of a substantial kind. The passages which are quoted 
in support of the hypothesis of a second visit are 1 Cor. xvi. 7 ; 
2 Cor. il. 1, Xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2. We may at once set aside 
1 Cor. xvi. 7 (see note there): the verse harmonizes well with the 
hypothesis of a second visit, but is not evidence that any such 
visit took place. 2 Cor. xii. 21 is stronger: it is intelligible, if 
no visit of a distressing character had previously been paid ; but 
it is still more intelligible, if such a visit had been paid; ‘ lest, 
when I come, my God should again humble me before you.’ 
2 Cor. il, 1 is at least as strong: ‘For I determined for myself 
this, not again in sorrow to come to you.’ ‘ Again in sorrow’ 
comes first with emphasis, and the most natural explanation is 
that he has visited them év Avzy once, and that he decided that 
he would not make the experiment a second time. It is in- 
credible that he regarded his first visit, in which he founded the 
Church, as a visit paid év Avwy. Therefore the painful visit 
must have been a second one. Yet it is possible to avoid this 
conclusion by separating ‘again’ from ‘in. sorrow,’ which is next 
to it, and confining it to ‘come,’ which is remote from it. This 
construction, if possible, is not very probable. 

But it is the remaining texts, 2 Cor. xii. 14, xili. 1, 2, which 
are so strong, especially xiii. 2: ‘ Behold, this is the third time I 
am ready to come to you’—‘ This is the third time I am coming 
to you. . . . I have said before, and I do say before, as when I 
was present the second time, so now being absent, to those who 
were in sin before, and to all the rest,’ etc. It is difficult to think 
that the Apostle is referring to zx¢entions to come, or willingness 
~ to come, and not to an actual visit ; or again that he is counting 
a letter as avisit. That is possible, but it is not natural. Again, 
the preposition in rots zponuapryxoow is more naturally explained 
as meaning ‘who were in sin before my second visit’ than 
‘before their conversion.’ Wieseler (Chronologie, p. 232) con- 
siders that these passages render the assumption of a second visit 
to Corinth indispensable (xothwendig). Conybeare and Howson 


INTRODUCTION XXili 


(ch. xv. sud init.) maintain that ‘this visit is proved’ by these 
passages. Lightfoot (Bvdlical Essays, p. 274) says: ‘There are 
passages in the Epistles (e.g. 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1, 2) which seem 
inexplicable under any other hypothesis, except that of a second 
visit—the difficulty consisting not so much in the words them- 
selves, as in their relation to their context.” Schmiedel (Havd.- 
Comm. li. 1, p. 68) finds it hard to understand how any one can 
reject the hypothesis ; die Leugnung der Zwischenreise ist schwer 
verstandlich; and he goes carefully through the evidence. 
Sanday (Zzcy. Bibl. i. go3) says: ‘The supposition that the 
second visit was only contemplated, not paid, appears to be ex- 
cluded by 2 Cor. xiii. 2.”. Equally strong on the same side are 
Alford, J. H. Bernard (Zxfosttor’s Grk. Test.), Julicher (Zutrod. 
to N.T. p. 31), Massie (Century Bible), G. H. Rendall (Epp. to 
the Corr. p. 31), Waite (Speaker's Comm.) ; and with them agree 
Bleek,* Findlay, Osiander, D. Walker, and others to be men- 
tioned below. On the other hand, Baur, de Wette, Edwards, 
Heinrici, Hilgenfeld, Paley, Renan, Scholten, Stanley, Zahn, and 
others, follow Beza, Grotius, and Estius in questioning or denying 
this second visit of St Paul to Corinth. Ramsay (St Paul the 
Traveller, p. 275) thinks that, if it took place at all, it was from 
Philippi rather than Ephesus. Bachmann, the latest commentator 
on 2 Corinthians (Leipzig, 1909, p. 105), thinks that only an 
over-refined and artificial criticism can question it. We may 
perhaps regard the evidence for this visit as something short of 
proof; but it is manifest, both from the evidence itself, and also 
from the weighty names of those who regard it as conclusive, 
that we are not justified in treating the supposed visit as so 
improbable that there is no need to consider whether it took 
place before or after the writing of our Epistle. 

Many modern writers place it between 1 and 2 Corinthians, 
and connect it with the letter written ‘out of much affliction and 
anguish of heart with many tears’ (2 Cor. ii. 4). The visit was 
paid év Avry. The Apostle had to deal with serious evils, was 
perhaps crippled by illness, and failed to put a stop to them. 
After returning defeated to Ephesus, he wrote the sorrowful 
letter. This hypothesis is attractive, but it is very difficult to 
bring it into harmony with the Apostle’s varying plans and the 
Corinthians’ charges of fickleness (2 Cor. i. 15-24). But, in any 
case, if this second visit was paid after 1 Corinthians was written, 
the commentator on that Epistle need not do more than mention 
it. See Zncy. Brit., 11th ed., vii. p. 152. 


* Bleek is said to have been the first to show how many indications of a 
second visit are to be found (Stud. Krit. p. 625, 1830). 

+ For the arguments against the supposed visit see the section on the Date 
of this Epistle. 


XX1V INTRODUCTION 


But the majority of modern writers, including Alford, J. H. 
Bernard, Bleek, Billroth, Credner, Hausrath, Hofmann, Holsten, 
Klopper, Meyer, Neander, Olshausen, Otto, Reuss, Riickert, 
Sanday, Schenkel, Schmiedel, Waite, and B. Weiss follow 
Chrysostom in placing the second visit defore 1 Corinthians. 
Some place it before the letter mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9. This 
has decided advantages. The lost letter of v.g may have alluded 
to the painful visit and treated it in such a way as to render any 
further reference to it unnecessary. This might account for the 
silence of 1 Corinthians respecting the visit. Even if the visit 
be placed after the lost letter, its painful character would account 
for the silence about it in our Epistle. Some think that the 
Epistle is not silent, and that iv. 18 refers to this visit: ‘As if, 
however, I were not coming to see you, some got puffed up.’ 
But this cannot refer to a visit that is paid, as if it meant, ‘You 
thought that I was not coming, and I did come.’ It refers toa 
visit that is contemplated, as the next verse shows: ‘Come, how- 
ever, I shall quickly to see you.’ 

The following tentative scheme gives the events which led up 
to the writing of our Epistle :— 

(1) St Paul leaves Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla and 
finally settles at Ephesus. 

(2) Apollos continues the work of the Apostle at Corinth. 

(3) Other teachers arrive, hostile to the Apostle, and Apollos 
leaves. 

(4) St Paul pays a short visit to Corinth to combat this 
hostility and other evils, and fails. 

(5) He writes the letter mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9. 

(6) Bad news arrives from Corinth brought by members of 
Chloe’s familia, perhaps also by the bearers of the Corinthians’ 
letter, and by Apollos. 

The Apostle at once writes 1 Corinthians. 

The Plan of the Epistle is very clear. One is seldom in 
doubt as to where a section begins and ends, or as to what the 
subject is. There are occasional digressions, or what seem to 
be such, as the statement of the great Principle of Forbearance 
(ix. 1-27), or the Hymn in praise of Love (xiii.), but their con- 
nexion with the main argument of the section in which they 
occur is easily seen. The question which cannot be answered 
with absolute certainty is not a very important one. We cannot 
be quite sure how much of the Epistle is a reply to questions 
asked by the Corinthians in their letter to the Apostle. Certainly 
the discussion of various problems about Marriage (vii. 1-40) is 
such, as is shown by the opening words, zepi d¢ dv éypaware: and 
almost certainly the question about partaking of Idol-meats 
(vill. 1-xi. 1) was raised by the Corinthians, zepi 5¢ rav cidwdo- 


INTRODUCTION XXV 


@’7twv. The difficulty was a real one and of frequent occurrence ; 
and, as the Apostle does not refer to teaching already given to 
them on the subject, they would be likely to consult him, all the 
more so as there seem to have been widely divergent opinions 
among themselves about the question. It is not impossible that 
other sections which begin in a similar way are references to the 
Corinthian letter, wepi d& trav rvevparixay (xil. 1), wept dé THs Aoylas 
THs els Tovs adyious (xvi. 1), and epi 5€ “AroAAW Tod addeAhod 
(xvi. 12). But most of the expressions which look like quotations 
from the Corinthian letter occur in the sections about Marriage 
and Idol-meats ; e.g. kadov dvOparw yuvatkds py) Grtec Oar (vii. 1), 
mavrTes yvaou éxoner (viii. 1), tavta eLeorw (x. 23). The direc- 
tions about Spiritual Gifts and the Collection for the Saints may 
have been prompted by information which the Apostle received 
by word of mouth. What is said about Apollos (xvi. 12) must 
have come from Apollos himself; but the Corinthians may have 
asked for his return to them. 

According to the arrangement adopted, the Epistle has four 
main divisions, without counting either the Introduction or the 
Conclusion. 


Epistolary Introduction, i 1-9. 
A. The Apostolic Salutation, i. 1-3. 
B. Preamble of Thanksgiving and Hofe, i. 4-9. 


I. Urgent Matters for Blame, i. 10-vi. 20. 


A. The Dissensions (Xxiopara), i. 10-iv. 21. 
/ The Facts, i. 10-17. 
2 The False Wisdom and the True, i. 18-iii. 4. 
> The False Wisdom, i. 18-11. 5. 
The True Wisdon, ii. 6—i11. 4. 
The True Wisdom described, ii. 6-13. 
The Spiritual and the animal Characters, 
lil. I4—lll. 4. 
The True Conception of the Christian Pastorate, 
lll, 5-lVv. 21. . 
» General Definition, iii. 5-9. 
“ The Builders, iii. ro—15. 
The Temple, i. 16, 17, 
Warning against a mere ‘human’ Estimate 
of the Pastoral Office, iii. 18—iv. 5. 
« Personal Application ; Conclusion of the sub- 
ject of the Dissensions, iv. 6-21. 


B. Absence of Moral Discipline; the Case of Incest, 
Vv. I-13. 


XXVi INTRODUCTION 


C. Litigation before Heathen Courts, vi. 1-11. 
The Evil and its Evil Occasion, vi. 1-8. 

Unrighteousness, a Survival of a bad Past, 
which ought not to survive, vi. 9-11. 


D. fornication, vi. 12-20. 


II. Reply to the Corinthian Letter, vii. 1-xi. 1. 


A. Marriage and its Problems, vii. 1-40. 
Celibacy is good, but Marriage is natural, 
Vii. I-7. 
Advice to Different Classes, vii. 8—4o. 
B, Food offered to Idols, viii. 1-xi. 1. 
General Principles, viii. 1-13. 
The Great Principle of Forbearance, ix. 1-27. 
These Principles applied, x. 1—xi. 1. 
The Example of the Israelites, x. 1-13. 
The Danger of Idolatry, x. 14-22. 
Practical Rules about Idol-meats, x. 23-xi. 1. 


III. Disorders in Connexion with Public Worship, xi. 2- 
xiv. 40. 


A. The Vetting of Women in Public Worship, xi. 2-16. 


B. Disorders connected with the Lord’s Supper, 
xi. 17-34. 
C. Spiritual Gifts, xii. 1-xiv. 40. 
The Variety, Unity, and true Purpose of the 
Gifts, xii. I-11. 
Illustration from Man’s Body of the Unity of 
the Church, xii. 12-31. 
»A Hymn in Praise of Love, xiii. 1-13. 

Spiritual Gifts as regulated by Love, xiv. 1-40. 
Prophesying superior to Tongues, xiv. 1-25. 
Regulations respecting these two Gifts, xiv. 

26-36. 
Conclusion of the Subject, xiv. 37-40. 


IV. The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead, xv. 1-58. 


A. The Resurrection of Christ an Essential Article, 
xv. I-II. 


B. Lf Christ is risen, the Dead in Christ will rise, 
XV. 12-34. 
Consequences of denying the resurrection of 
the Dead, xv. 12-19. 


INTRODUCTION XXVil 


Consequences of accepting the Resurrection of 
Christ, xv. 20-28. 
Arguments from Experience, xv. 29-34. 


C. Answers to Objections: the Body of the Risen, 


XV. 35-58. 

The Answers of Nature and of Scripture, 
XV. 35-49. 

Victory over Death, xv. 50-57. 

Practical Result, xv. 58. 


Practical and Personal; the Conclusion, xvi. 1-24. 


The Collection for the Poor at Jerusalem, 
XVl. I-4. 

The Apostle’s Intended Visit to Corinth, 
XVi. 5-9. 

Timothy and Apollos commended, xvi. 10-12. 

Exhortation, xvi. 13, 14. 

Directions about Stephanas and others, xvi. 
15-18. 

Concluding Salutations, Warning, and Benediction, 

XVi. 19-24. 


No Epistle tells us so much about the life of a primitive 
local Church; and 2 Corinthians, although it tells us a great 
deal about the Apostle himself, does not tell us much more 
about the organization of the Church of Corinth. Evidently, 
there is an immense amount, and that of the highest interest, 
which neither Epistle reveals. Each of them suggests questions 
which neither of them answers; and it is very disappointing to 
turn to Acts, and to find that to the whole of this subject 
St Luke devotes less than twenty verses. But the instructive- 
ness of 1 Corinthians is independent of a knowledge of the 
historical facts which it does not reveal. 


§ IV. PLACE AND DATE, 


The place where the Epistle was written was clearly Ephesus 
(xvi. 8), where the Apostle was remaining until the following 
Pentecost. This is recognized by Euthal pracf. aad éfécov ris 
“Aoias, also by B*P in their subscriptions. The subscriptions 
of D?>K Ld Euthal. cod. all agree in giving ‘Philippi’ or 
‘Philippi in Macedonia’ as the place of writing, a careless infer- 
ence from xvi. 5, which occurs also in the Syrr. Copt. Goth. 
Versions, in later cursives, and in the Textus Receptus. 

St Paul is at Ephesus in Acts xviii. 19-21, but the data of this 


XXVill INTRODUCTION 


Epistle (xvi. 5-8) are quite irreconcilable with its having been 
written during this short visit. It must therefore belong to some 
part of St Paul’s unbroken residence at Ephesus for three years 
(Acts xx. 18, tov mdvta ypovov: 31, Tpletiay vixta Kal jpepar), 
which falls within the middle or Aegean period of his ministry. 
The first, or Antiochean period extends from Acts xi. 25- 
XViil. 23, when Antioch finally ceases to be his headquarters. 
The Aegean period ends with his last journey to Jerusalem 
and arrest there (xxi. 15). This begins the third period, that of 
the Imprisonments, which carries us to the close of the Acts. 
Our Epistle accordingly falls within the limits of Acts xix. 21- 
xx. 1. We have to consider the probable date of the events there 
described, and the relation to them of the data of our Epistle. 

The present writer discussed these questions fully in Hastings, 
DB. art. ‘Corinthians,’ without the advantage of having seen the 
art. ‘Chronology,’ by Mr. C. H. Turner, in the same volume, 
or Harnack’s Chronologte d. Altchristlichen Literatur, which 
appeared very shortly after. The artt. ‘ Felix,’ ‘Festus,’ were 
written immediately upon the appearance of Harnack’s volume, 
that on ‘Aretas’ previously. This chapter does not aim at 
being a full dissertation on the chronology of the period. For 
this, reference must be made to all the above articles; Mr. 
Turner’s discussion is monumental, and placed the entire 
question on a new and possibly final basis. 

The general scheme of dates for St Paul’s life as covered by 
the Acts lies between two points which can be approximately 
determined, namely, his escape from Damascus under Aretas 
(Acts ix. 25; 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33) not long (jpepas tuvds, Acts ix. 19) 
after his conversion, and the arrival of Festus as procurator of 
Judaea (Acts xxiv. 27) in succession to Felix. The latter date 
fixes the beginning of the dceréa 6An of Acts xxvill. 30; the close 
of the latter, again, gives the interval available, before the 
Apostle’s martyrdom shortly after the fire of Rome (64 A.D.), 
for the events presupposed in the Epistles to Timothy and 
Titus. 


Aretas to the Apostolic Counatl. 


The importance of the Aretas date, which Harnack fails to 
deal with satisfactorily, is that Damascus is shown by its coins 
to have been under the Empire as late as 34 A.D., and that it 
is practically certain that it remained so till the death of Tiberius, 
March 37 A.D. This latter year, then, is the earliest possible 
date for St Paul’s escape, and his conversion must be placed at 
earliest in 35 or 36. 

From this date we reckon that of the first visit of St Paul 


INTRODUCTION Xxix 


(as a Christian) to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion 
(Gal. i. 18), z.e. in 37-38, and of the Apostolic Council (Acts xv. ; 
Gal. ii. ; the evidence for the identity of reference in these two 
chapters is decisive), fourteen years from the conversion 
(Gal. ii. 1). (The possibility that the fourteen years are 
reckoned from the first visit must be recognized, but the 
probability is, as Turner shows, the other way; and the 
addition of three years to our reckoning will involve insuper- 
able difficulty in the later chronology.) ‘This carries us to 49, 
whether we add 14 to 35, or—as usual in antiquity, reckoning 
both years in—r3 to 36. This result—4g a.p. for the Apostolic 
Council—agrees with the other data. The pause in the Acts 
(xii. 24, the imperfects summing up the character of the period), 
after the death of Agrippa 1., which took place in 44 (see Turner, 
p. 416b), covers the return of Barnabas and Saul from their 
visit to Jerusalem to relieve the sufferers from the famine. This 
famine cannot be placed earlier than 46 a.p. (Turner) ; supposing 
this to have been’ the year of the visit of Barnabas and Saul 
to Jerusalem, their departure (Acts xiii. 3) on the missionary 
journey to Cyprus, etc., cannot have taken place till after the 
winter 46-47 ; the whole journey must have lasted quite eighteen 
months. We thus get the autumn of 48 for the return to 
Antioch (xiv. 26); and the xpovov ov« éAtyov (v. 28) spent there 
carries us over the winter, giving a date in the first half of 49, 
probably the feast of Pentecost (May 24), for the meeting with 
the assembled Apostles at Jerusalem. ‘This date, therefore, 
appears to satisfy all the conditions. 


Apostolic Council to the end of Residence at Ephesus. 


Assuming its validity, the sequence of the narrative in the 
Acts permits us to place the departure of St Paul from Antioch 
over Mount Taurus ‘after some days’ (Acts xv. 36-41) in 
September 49, his arrival at Philippi in the summer, and at 
Corinth in the autumn, of 50. The eighteen months (xviii. 11) 
of his stay there would end about the Passover (April 2-9) of 
52. By Pentecost he is at Jerusalem, and by midsummer at 
Antioch. Here, then, closes the Antiochene period (44-52) of 
his ministry. Antioch is no longer a suitable headquarters, 
Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus claim him, and he transfers his field 
of work to the region of the Aegean. His final visit to Antioch 
appears to be not long (xviii. 23, xpovov twa): if he left it about 
August, his journey to Ephesus, unmarked by any recorded 
episode, would be over before midwinter, say by December 52. 
The zperta (see above) of his residence there cannot, then, 


XXX INTRODUCTION 


have ended before 55; the ‘three months’ of xix. 8 and the 
‘two years’ of v. 10 carry us to about March of that year: the 
remainder of the tperia (which may not have been quite 
complete) is occupied by the episodes of the sons of Sceva, the 
mission of Timothy and Erastus (xix. 22), and the riot in the 
theatre. Whether this permits St Paul to leave Ephesus for 
Corinth soon after Pentecost 55 (1 Cor. xvi. 8), or compels us 
to allow till Pentecost 56, cannot be decided until we have 
considered the second main date, namely, that of the procurator- 
ship of Festus. 


From Festus back to 1 Corinthians. 


That Felix became procurator of Judaea in 52 A.D. may be 
taken as fairly established (Hastings, DA. artt. ‘ Felix,’ and ‘Chron- 
ology,’ p. 418). The arrival of Festus is placed by Eusebius in 
his Chronicle in the year Sept. 56-Sept. 57; that of Albinus, his 
successor, in 61-62. The latter date is probably correct. But 
the crowded incidents set down by Josephus to the reign of 
Felix, coupled with the paucity of events ascribed by him to that 
of Festus, suggest that Felix’s tenure of office was long compared 
with that of Festus (the zoAAa érn of Acts xxiv. Io cannot be 
confidently pressed in confirmation of this). We cannot, more- 
over, be sure that Eusebius was guided by more than conjecture 
as to the date of Felix’s recall. His brother Pallas, whose 
influence with Nero (according to Josephus) averted his con- 
demnation, was removed from office in 55, certainly before 
Felix’s recall; but the circumstances of his retirement favour 
the supposition that he retained influence with the Emperor for 
some time afterwards. It is not improbable, therefore, that 
Felix was recalled in 57-58. St Paul’s arrest, two years before 
the recall of Felix (Acts xxiv. 27), would then fall in the year 
Sept. 55-Sept. 56, ze. at Pentecost (Acts xx. 16) 56 (for the details 
see Turner in Hastings, DA. art. ‘Chronology,’ pp. 418, 419). 

We have, then, for the events of Acts xix. 21—xxiv. 27, the 
interval from about March 55 to Pentecost (?) 58, or till Pente- 
cost 56 for the remainder of St Paul’s stay at Ephesus, the 
journey from Ephesus to Corinth, the three months spent there, 
the journey to Philippi, the voyage thence to Troas, Tyre, and 
Caesarea, and arrival at Jerusalem. This absolutely precludes 
any extension of St Paul’s stay at Ephesus until 56. The 
Pentecost of 1 Cor. xvi. 8 must be that of 55, unless indeed we 
can bring down the recall of Felix till 58-59, which though by 
no means impossible, has the balance of probability against it. 
Still more considerable is the balance of likelihood against 60 or 
even 61 as the date for Felix’s recall, and 58 or 59 for St Paul’s 


INTRODUCTION XXX] 


arrest. The former date, 58, must be given up, and St. Paul’s 
arrest dated at latest in 57, more probably in 56. 


Resultant Scheme. 


Accordingly from Aretas to Festus, that is from St Paul’s 
escape from Damascus to the end of his imprisonment at 
Caesarea, we have at most 22 years (37-59), more probably 
only 21. It is evident that the time allowed above for the 
successive events of the Antiochene and Aegean periods of his 
ministry, which has throughout been taken at a reasonable 
minimum, completely fills the chronological framework supplied 
by the prior dates. The narrative of St Paul’s ministry in the 
Acts, in other words, is continuously consecutive. While giving 
fuller detail to some parts of the story than to others, it leaves 
no space of time unaccounted for; the limits of date at either 
end forbid the supposition of any such unrecorded period. 
Unless we are—contrary to all the indications of this part of the 
book—to ignore the Acts as an untrustworthy source, we have in 
the Acts and Epistles combined a coherent and chronologically 
tenable scheme of the main events in St Paul’s life for these 
vitally important 21 years. It must be added that the minor 
points of contact with the general chronology,—the proconsul- 
ships of Sergius Paulus and of Gallio, the expulsion of the Jews 
from Rome by Claudius, the marriage of Drusilla to Felix,—fit 
without difficulty into the scheme, and that no ascertainable date 
refuses to do so. For these points, omitted here in order to 
emphasize the fundamental data, the reader must consult Mr. 
Turner’s article and the other authorities referred to below. 

We may therefore safely date our Epistle towards the close 
of St Paul’s residence at Ephesus, and in the earlier months of 
the year 55. 


Bearing of St Paul's movements on the question of Date. 


The date of the previous letter referred to in v. 9 can only 
be matter of inference. Seeing that the Apostle corrects a 
possible mistake as to its meaning, it was probably of somewhat 
recent date. There is every antecedent likelihood that letters 
passed not infrequently between the Apostle at Ephesus and his 
converts across the Aegean (see Hastings, DAZ. artt. ‘1 Cor- 
inthians,’ § 6, and ‘2 Corinthians,’ § 4 g). But the language of 
our Epistle is difficult, or impossible, to reconcile with the 
supposition that the Apostle’s Ephesian sojourn had been broken 
into by a visit to Corinth. ‘There is not a single trace” of it 


XXXil INTRODUCTION 


(Weizsicker, Afost. Zeitalter, pp. 277, 300). The case for such 
a visit is entirely based on supposed references to it in 2 Cor. ; 
these references at any rate show that this visit, if paid at any 
time, was of a painful character (€v Avy, 2 Cor. ii. 1). If, then, 
such a visit had been paid before 1 Corinthians was written, to 
what was this Avery due? Not to the cxiopara, of which St Paul 
knew only from Chloe’s people (i. 11). Not to the ropveéa, nor to 
the disorders at the Lord’s Supper, of which, he expressly tells us, 
he knew by report only (v. 1, xi. 18). Not to the litigiousness, nor 
to the denials of the Resurrection, of both of which he speaks 
with indignant surprise. If a distressing visit had preceded our 
Epistle, the painful occasion of it was dead and buried when St 
Paul wrote, and St Paul’s references to it (clearly as a recent 
sore) in 2 Corinthians become inexplicable. Certainly when our 
Epistle was written a painful visit (€v paBdw, iv. 21) was before 
the Apostle’s mind as a possible necessity. But there is no 
7aXw, no hint that there had already been a passage of the kind. 
On the contrary, some gainsayers were sceptical as to his coming 
at all; there is, in fact, nothing to set against the clear inference 
from t Cor. ii. 1 sqq., that St Paul’s first stay at Corinth had so 
far been his one visit there. So far, in fact, as our Epistle is 
concerned, the idea of a previous second visit is uncalled for, to 
say the very least. If 2 Corinthians necessitates the assumption 
of such a visit,* it must be inserted before that Epistle and after 
our present letter. But the question whether such necessity 
exists depends on the possibility of reconciling the visit with the 
data as awhole. (On this aspect of the matter the present writer 
would refer to Hastings, DZ. vol. i. pp. 492-5, S$ 4, 5.) The 
most ingenious method of saving the ‘painful’ visit has a direct 
bearing on the date of our Epistle. Recognizing the conclusive 
force of the objections to placing the visit before our letter, 
Dr J. H. Kennedy (Zhe Second and Third Epistles to the 
Corinthians, Methuen, 1900) places this Epistle before the 
Pentecost of the year previous to St Paul’s departure from 
Ephesus, distinguishes Timothy’s mission to Corinth (1 Cor. 
iv. 17, Xvi. 10) from his (later) mission with Erastus ‘to Mace- 
donia’ (Acts xix. 22), makes our Epistle the pre/ude to the 
painful visit (xvi. 5), and breaks up the Second Epistle so as to 
obtain a scheme into which that visit will fit. 1 Corinthians would 
then be dated (in accordance with the chronology adopted above) 
before Pentecost 54. 

But, interesting and ingenious as is Dr. Kennedy’s discussion, 
the close correspondence of ch. xvi. 3-6 with the facts of Acts 
XxX. I-3—the journey through Macedonia to Corinth, the winter 
spent there, the start for Jerusalem with the brethren—makes 


* See the previous section, pp. xxi-xxiv. 


INTRODUCTION XXXiil 


the divorce of the two passages very harsh and improbable. In 
our Epistle the plan actually followed is already planned; its 
abandonment and resumption follow rapidly, as described in 
2 Corinthians, and it seems impossible to doubt that our Epistle 
was written with the immediate prospect (not of the painful visit 
but) of the visit actually recorded in Acts xx. 3; #e. in the spring 


of 55. 


The following table gives the schemes adopted by Harnack 
in his Chronologie (supra), Turner (D&B. as above); Ramsay, 
St Paul the Traveller and Expositor, 1896, p. 336, A fixed 
date, etc.; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 216-233; Wieseler, 
Chronologie d. Apost. Zeitalters (Eng. tr.); Lewin, Fasti Sacrt. 
See also Blass, Acta Apostolorum, 1895, pp. 21-24; Kennedy 
(as above). See also Lucy. Brit, 11th ed., ul. pp. 891 f., vu. 


Oe A 

















ra s a 
3 o g es: co g 
fel < re] n rae, 
a 5 = oo | é 
x cal 4 4A = 4 
The Crucifixion . . |29 or 30 29 30 st 30 33 
Conversion of St Paul . 30 35 or 36 32 34 40 37 
First visit to Jerusalem 33 38 34 37 43 39 
Second visit to Jeru- 
salem Et aie > ane 46 45 45 45 44 
First missionary 
1) pee ies 45 47. |460r47| 48 |45-57| 45 
Third visit to Jeru- 
salem ; the Apostolic 
Council . : ; 47 49 5° 51 50 49 
Second Byeeiouary 
journey . 47 49 50 51 50 49 
Corinth reached late in 48 50 SL 52 52 52 
Epistles to the Thessa- 
lonians . 48-50 | 50-52 | 51-53 |52-53|52-53] 52 
Fourth visit to " Jeru- 
salem. , 50 52 53 54 54 SG 
Return to Antioch - 5° 52 53 54 54 53 
Third missionary 
journey . 5° 52 53 4 uy 
In Ephesus; 1 Corin- ? : i 
thians . 50-53 | 52-55 | 53-56 Fa rs ¥ 
In Macedonia ; 2 Corin- See eon ed 
thians . 53 55 56 7, 
In Corinth ; Epistle to : ih ay 
Romans . 53, 54 | 55, 56 | 56, 57 |57, 58/57, 58/57, 58 


Fifth visit to Jerusalem ; 2 , 
arrest . 4 - 54 56 57 58 58 58 





XXXIV INTRODUCTION 


§ V. DocTRINE. 


The First Epistle to the Corinthians is not, like that to the 
Romans, a doctrinal treatise; nor is it, like Galatians, the docu- 
ment of a crisis involving far-reaching doctrinal consequences. It 
deals with the practical questions affecting the life of a Church 
founded by the writer: one great doctrinal issue, arising out of 
circumstances at Corinth (xv. 12), is directly treated ; but doctrine 
is, generally speaking, implied or referred to rather than enforced. 
Yet, none the less, the doctrinal importance and instructiveness 
of the letter can hardly be overrated. In its alternations of light 
and shadow it vividly reproduces the life of a typical Gentile- 
Christian community, seething with the interaction of the new 
life and the inherited character, with the beginnings of that age- 
long warfare of man’s higher and lower self which forms the 
under-current of Christian history in all ages. 

The Apostle recalls to first principles every matter which 
engages his attention; at every point his convictions, as one 
who had learned from Christ Himself, are brought to bear upon 
the question before him, though it may be one of minor detail. 
At the least touch the latent forces of fundamental Faith break 
out into action. 

First of all, we must take note of the Afostle’s relation to 
Christ. He is ‘a called Apostle of Jesus Christ’ (i. 1), and 
asserts this claim in the face of those who call it in question 
(ix. 3). He rests it, firstly, on having ‘seen Jesus our Lord’ (ix. 1), 
clearly at his Conversion ; secondly, on the fruits of his Apostle- 
ship, which the Corinthians, whom he had begotten in the Lord 
(iii. 6 sqq., iv. 15, see notes on these passages), should be the 
last to question (ix. 2). This constituted his answer to critics 
(ix. 3). As far, then, as authority was concerned, he claimed to 
have it directly from Christ, without human source or channel 
(as in Gal. i. 1, 12). But this did not imply independence of 
the tradition common to the Apostles in regard to the facts of 
the Lord’s life, death, and Resurrection. In regard to the Institu- 
tion of the Lord’s Supper (see below), the words zapéAaPBov azo Tod 
Kvpéov have been taken as asserting the contrary. But they do 
not necessarily, nor in the view of the present writer probably, 
imply more than that the Lord was the source (a0) of the 
mapadoots. The circumstantial details here, as in the case of the 
appearances after the Resurrection, would most naturally come 
through those who had witnessed them (xv. 1-10), in common 
with whom St Paul handed on what had been handed on to him. 
So again in dealing with marriage, he is careful to distinguish 
between the reported teaching of the Lord and what he gives as 


INTRODUCTION XXXV 


his own judgment, founded, it is true, upon fidelity to the Spirit 
of Christ (vii. 10, 12, 25, 40). 

The passages in question have an important bearing upon 
St Paul’s knowledge in detail of the earthly life, ministry, and 
words of Christ. It is not uncommonly inferred from his nearly 
exclusive insistence upon the incarnation, passion, death and 
Resurrection of our Lord that he either knew or cared to know 
nothing of the historical Jesus (2 Cor. v. 163; 1 Cor. ii. 2).* But 
the appeal of ch. vii. 10, 25 is a warning that the inference from 
silence is precarious here. The /ve-existence of Christ is clearly 
taught in xv. 45-48. That St Paul taught pre-existence only— 
as distinct from the Divinity of Christ (His pre-existence im the 
Unity of the Godhead),—was the view of Baur, followed in sub- 
stance by Pfleiderer (Pau/dinism, Eng. tr. i. 139 sqq.), Schmiedel, 
in loc.. and many others. It is bound up with the old Tubingen 
theory which restricts the Pauline omologumena to 1 and 2 Cor- 
inthians, Romans, and Galatians. If we are allowed to combine 
the thoughts of Phil. ii. 5 sqq., and Col. i. 15-18, ii. 9, with 1 Cor. 
xv., it becomes impossible to do justice to the whole thought of 
St Paul by the conception of an av@pw7ros é€ otpavod (xv. 47), pre- 
existent 7” the Divine Idea only. The fundamental position of 
Christ ‘and that crucified’ (ii, 2; cf. ili. 10, 11) in the Apostle’s 
preaching is only intelligible in connexion with His cosmic 
function as Mediator (viii. 6, 50 ot ra ~=dvra) which again stands 
closely related with the thought expanded in Col. i. 15f. Ina 
word, it is now admitted that, according to St Paul, Christ, as 
the Mediator between God and man, stood at the centre of the 
Gospel. Whether this equally applies to the teaching of Christ 
Himself, as recorded in the Gospels, or whether, on the contrary, 
the teaching of Christ is reducible to the two heads of the 
Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man, without any- 
proclamation of Himself as the Mediator of the former, as 
Harnack in Das Wesen des Christentums and other recent writers 
have contended, is a question worthy of most careful inquiry, 
but not in this place.{ It belongs to the study of the history 
and doctrine of the Gospels. 


* That this is an erroneous inference is shown by Fletcher, 7he Conversion 
of St Paul, pp. 55-57; by Cohu, St Paul in the Light of Modern Research, 
pp. 110-116; by Jiilicher, Paulus u. Jesus, pp. 54-56. 

+ See also what is implied in ‘the rock was Christ’; note on x. 4: and 
Swete, Zhe Ascended Christ, pp. 61, III, 157- 

{ That there is no such essential difference between the teaching of Christ 
and the teaching of St Paul as Wrede (Pau/us, 1905) has contended, is urged 
by Kolbing (Dre gezstige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus, 1906) and 
A. Meyer (Wer hat das Christentum begrtindet, Jesus oder Paulus, 1907), no 
less than by more conservative scholars. See A. E, Garvie, Zhe Christian 
Certainty, pp. 399 f. 


XXXVI INTRODUCTION 


The Epistle contains not only the clearly-cut doctrines of the 
death of Christ for our sins and of His Resurrection from the dead 
on the Third Day, but the equally clear assertion that these 
doctrines were not only the elements of St Paul’s own teaching, 
but were taught by him in common with the older Apostles 
(xv. 1-11). The doctrine which is mainly in question here is 
that of the Resurrection of the dead, of which the fifteenth 
chapter of the Epistle is the classical exposition. St Paul is 
meeting the denial by some (rues) of the Corinthians that there 
is a resurrection of the dead. The persons in question, who 
were most probably the representatives, not of Sadducaism, but 
of vague Greek opinion influenced perhaps by popular Epicurean 
ideas, did not deny the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Their 
assent to it must, however, have become otiose. To the Re- 
surrection of Christ, then, St Paul appeals in refutation of the 
opinion he has to combat. After reminding them that they had 
learned from him, as a fundamental truth, the fact of the 
Resurrection of Christ from the dead, attested by many appear- 
ances to the Apostles, and by the appearance to himself at his 
conversion, he proceeds to establish the link between this 
primary truth and that of the Resurrection of the dead in Christ. 
The relation between the two is that of antecedent and con- 
sequent,—of cause and effect. If the consequent is denied the 
antecedent is overthrown (vv. 12-19), and with it the whole 
foundation of the Christian hope of eternal life. But Christ has 
risen, and mankind has in Him a new source of life, as in Adam 
it had its source of death. The consummation of life in Christ 
is then traced out in bold, mysterious touches (vv. 23-28). First 
Christ Himself; then, at the Parousia, those that are Christ’s ; 
then the End. The End embraces the redelivery by Him of the 
Kingdom to His Father: the Kingdom is mediatorial and has for 
its purpose the subjugation of the enemies, death last of them all. 
All things, other than God, are to be subjected to the Son; 
when this is accomplished, the redelivery,—the subjection of the 
Son Himself,—takes effect, ‘that God may be all in all.’ 

On this climax of the history of the Universe, it must suffice 
to point out that St Paul clearly does not mean that the personal 
being of the Son will have an end; but that the Kingdom of 
Christ, so far as it can be distinguished from the Kingdom of 
God, will then be merged in the latter. St Paul here gathers up 
the threads of all previous eschatological thought ; the Messiah, 
the enemies, the warfare of Life and Death, the return of Christ 
to earth, and the final destiny of the saints. It is important to 
notice that he contemplates no earthly reign of the Christ after 
His Return. The quickening of the saints ‘at His Coming’ 
immediately ushers in ‘the End,’ the redelivery, the close of the 


INTRODUCTION XXXVIl 


Mediatorial Kingdom. This is in harmony with the earlier 
teaching of the Apostle in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and there is 
nothing in any of his Epistles out of harmony with it. But the 
thought of the eav/y Return of Christ (v. 51) is already less pro- 
minent. The ‘time is short’ (vil. 29), but instead of ‘we that are 
alive,’ it is now ‘we shall not all sleep.’ This i borne out by 
2 Cor. v. 3, where the possibility that the great change will find us 
in the body (0d yupvo/) is still contemplated, but only as a possi- 
bility. The remainder (vv. 35 sqq.) of the chapter brings out 
St Paul’s characteristic doctrine of the Resurrection body. This 
is in direct contrast with the crude conceptions current among 
the Pharisees, according to which the bodies of the saints were 
thought of as passing underground from their graves to the place 
of resurrection, and there rising in the same condition in which 
death found them. 

St Paul, on the other hand, contrasts the mortal (@@aprév) or 
animal (Wvxexov) body with the risen or spiritual body. The 
former is értyeov, xoixov, and ‘cannot inherit the kingdom of 
God.’ It will be the same individual body (jas, vi. 14; see 
Rom. viii. 12), but yet not the same; it will be quickened, 
changed (v. 51), will put on incorruption, immortality ; it (the 
same body) is ‘sown’ as an earthly body, but will be raised a 
spiritual body. 

This change is in virtue of our membership of Christ, and is 
the working-out of the same Divine power, first exerted in the 
raising of Christ Himself, and finally extended to all His 
members (cf. Phil. iii. 21; 1 Cor. vi. 14; Rom. viii. 19, 21, 23). 
It follows that the Apostle conceived of the risen Body of 
Christ Himself as ‘a spiritual body’; not that He brought His 
human body from heaven, but that His heavenly personality 
(xv. 47) at last, through His Resurrection, the work of the 
Father’s Power (Rom. vi. 4), constituted Him, as the ‘last 
Adam,’ ‘ quickening spirit’ (xv. 45), and the source of quickening 
to all His members. His body is now, therefore, a glorious 
body (Phil. iii. 21), and the incorruption which His members 
inherit is the direct effect of their union with the Body of Christ 
(xv. 48 sq.). 

The whole horizon of this passage is limited, therefore, to 
the resurrection of the just. It is the kexouwnpévor (a term ex- 
clusively reserved for the dead in Christ) that are in view through- 
out: the whole argument turns upon the quickening, in Christ 
(xv. 22, 23), of those who belong to Him. As to the resurrection 
of the wicked, which St Paul certainly believed (ix. 24, 27; 
Rom. xiv. 10, 12; cf. Acts xxiv. 15), deep silence reigns in the 
whole of ch. xv. 

The Resurrection of Christ, then, occupies the central place 


XXXViil INTRODUCTION 


in St Paul’s doctrine of the Christian Life, both here and here- 
after, just as the doctrine of His Death for our sins is the founda- 
tion of our whole relation to God as reconciled sinners. The 
Resurrection not only supplies the indispensable proof of the 
real significance of the Cross; it is the source of our life as 
members of Christ, and the guarantee of our hope in Him. 

Of the Person of Christ, our Epistle implies much more than 
it expressly lays down. Christ was the whole of his Gospel 
(ii. 2); He is ‘the Lord’ (cf. Rom. x. 13), ‘through whom are 
all things, and we through Him’ (vili. 6); He satisfies all the 
needs of man, mental, moral, and religious (i. 30), and union 
with Him is the sphere of the whole life and work (xv. 58) of 
the Christian, of his social relations (vii. 22, 39), and of the 
activities of the Christian Church (v. 4, xii. 5, 12) as a body. 

The doctrine of grace, so prominent in other Epistles of this 
group, is for the most part felt rather than expressly handled in 
our Epistle. The passing reference in xv. 56 (7 d€ dvvayus tis 
dpaptias 6 vozos) may be compared with that in ix. 20, 21, where 
he explains that the Christian, though not t7d vépor, is not 
dvopos @eov but evvoyos Xpiorod (for which see Rom. viii. 2). It 
may be noted that a passage in this Epistle (iv. 7, 7/52 €xeus 6 odK 
édaBes) turned the entire course of Augustine’s thought upon 
the efficacy of Divine grace, with momentous consequences to 
the Church (Aug. de div. guaest. ad Simplic.i.; cf. Retract. U1. 1. 1 ; 
de don. Persev. 52). i 

On the Christian Life, our Epistle is an inexhaustible mine of 
suggestion.* With regard to personal life, it may be noted that 
the ascetic instinct which has ever tended to assert itself in the 
Christian Church finds its first utterance here (vii. 1, 25, 40, 
GéXw, vouifw St Kaddy, etc.), as representing the Apostle’s own 
mind, but coupled with solemn and lofty insistence (oi« éya 
dAAG 6 Képios) on the obligations of married life. His ‘ascetic’ 
counsels rest on the simple ground of the higher expediency. 
This latter principle (ro ovpdopov) is the keynote of the Ethics 
of our Epistle. ‘The ‘world’ (vii. 31),—all, that is, which fills 
human life, its joys, sorrows, interests, ties, possessions, op- 
portunities,—is to the Christian but means to a supreme end, in 
which the highest good of the individual converges with the 
highest good of his neighbour and of all (x. 24). Free in his 
sole responsibility to God (iii. 21, ii. 15, x. 23), the Spiritual 
Man limits his own freedom (vi. 12, ix. 19), in order to the 
building up of others and the discipline of self (ix. 24-27). The 
supreme good, to which all else is subordinated, is ‘ partaking of 
the Gospel’ (ix. 23), z.e. of the benefit the Gospel declares, namely, 


* See A. B. D. Alexander, The Ethics of St Paul, esp. pp. 115-125, 231, 
237-256, 293-297 ; Stalker, Zhe Ethic of Jesus, pp. 175, 351. 


INTRODUCTION XXX1X 


the unspeakable blessedness which God has granted to them 
that love Him (ii. 9, 12),-—begun in grace (i. 4) here, consum- 
mated in glory (ii. 7, xv. 43) hereafter. To analyse this 
conception further would carry us beyond the horizon of this 
Epistle (cf. Rom. ili. 23, vili. 18, etc. etc.) ; but it may be noted that 
there is a close correlation between the glory of God (x. 31) as 
the objective standard of action, and the glory of God in sharing 
which our chief happiness is finally to consist; also that the 
summum bonum, thus conceived, is no object of merely self- 
regarding desire: to desire it is to desire that all for whom 
Christ died may be led to its attainment. This principle of the 
“higher expediency” determines the treatment of the ethical 
problems which occur in the Epistle: the treatment of the 
body, matrimony, the eating of eidwAc@ura ;—and again, the use 
and abuse of spiritual gifts. But in its application to the latter, 
it is, as it were, transformed to its highest personal embodiment 
in the passion of Christian Love. The higher expediency lays 
down the duty of subordinating self to others, the lower self to 
the higher, things temporal to things eternal. Love is the inward 
state (correlative with Faith) in which this subordination has 
become an imperative instinct, raising the whole life to victory 
over the world. Such is the positive side of St Paul’s Ethics, 
according to which an act may be ‘ lawful,’ while yet the Christian 
will choose in preference what is ‘expedient’ (vi. 12, x. 23; cf. 
ix. 24-27), gaining, at the cost of forbearance, spiritual freedom 
for himself, and the good of others. Such are the Ethics of 
‘grace’ as distinct from ‘law’ (Rom. vi. 14). But many Chris- 
tians are under law (iil. 1 sqq.) rather than under grace: they 
need stern warning against sin, and of such warnings the Epistle is 
full (vi. 9, 10, viil. 12, X. 12-14, XI. 27, XV. 34, xvi. 22). The charter 
of Christian liberty (ii. 15) is for the spiritual person: emancipa- 
tion from the law (xv. 56; cf. Rom. vii. 24—viii. 2) comes, not 
by indulgence (vi. 12), but by self-conquest (ix. 21, 26 sq.). 

Not less instructive is our Epistle as to the Collective Work of 
the Church. No other book of the N.T., in fact, reflects so 
richly the life of the Christian body as it then was, and the 
principles which guided it (see Weizsadcker, Apost. Zettalter, pp. 
575-605). We note especially the development of discipline, of 
organization, and of worship. 

As to Discipline, the classical passage is v. 1 sqq.; here 
St Paul describes, not what had been done by the community, 
but what they ought to have done in dealing with a flagrant case 
of immorality. The congregation are met together; the Apostle 
himself, in spirit, is in their midst ; the power of the Lord Jesus 
is present. In the name of the Lord Jesus they expel the 
offender, ‘delivering him to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, 


xl INTRODUCTION 


that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.’ Here we 
have the beginning of ecclesiastical censures, to be inflicted by the 
community as a whole. The physical suffering entailed (cf. ch. 
xl. 30; Acts v. 1 sqq.) is assumed to be terrible (6A¢Opos), but 
is inherently temporal and remedial. The community would 
naturally have the power, upon repentance shown, to restore the 
culprit to fellowship (2 Cor. ii. 6, 10, although the case there in 
question is probably a different one). Such an assembly as St 
Paul here conceives would a fortiori be competent to dispose of 
any matters of personal rights or wrongs which might arise among 
members (vi. 1, 2, 5, v. 12), without recourse to heathen 
magistrates (ad:xor, vi. 1); for St Paul, who regards submission 
to the magistrate in regard to the criminal law as a duty (Rom. 
xili, 1 sqq.), dissuades Christians from invoking the heathen 
courts to settle quarrels, which are, moreover, wholly out of 
place among brethren. 

The Organization of the Corinthian Church is evidently still 
at an early stage. There is no mention of bishops, presbyters, 
or deacons: next after Apostles, prophets and teachers are 
named, in remarkable agreement with the reference in Acts xiii. 
1. Moreover, if we compare the list in 1 Cor. xii. 28 sqq. with 
those of Rom. xii. 6-8 and of Eph. iv. 11, the coincidence is too 
close to be accidental. The following table gives the three lists 
in synoptic form :— 


I. azoaroXot (Cor., Eph.). 

2. mpopyrat (Cor., Eph. ; zpopyreia, Rom.). 
[evayyeAurrat (Eph.) 
rouzeves (Eph.). 
divaxovia (Rom.). | 


3. O8doKaXor (1 Cor., Eph.) ; ddacxcwv (Rom.). Then follow 
mapaxadoav (Rom.), duvapes, iqapata (Eph.), avrAjpwes (1 Cor.) 
peradioovs (Rom.); KxuBepynoes (1 Cor.), mpovrrapevos (Rom.), 
eAcov (Rom.), yer) yAwooav (1 Cor.). 

There is clearly no systematic order throughout, nor can we 
take the lists as statistical. The variations are due to the un- 
studied spontaneity with which in each passage the enumeration 
ismade. All the more significant is it, therefore, that ‘ prophets’ 
(after ‘ Apostles’ in our Epistle and Ephesians) take the highest 
rank in all three lists, while ‘teachers,’ who rank very high in 
all three lists, ave the only other term common to all. In our list 
(ch. xii.) the three ‘ orders’ of Apostles, prophets, teachers, are the 
only ones expressly ranked as ‘first, second, third.’ Whether 
‘Apostles’ include, as in Rom. xvi. 7 and perhaps Gal. i. 19, an 
indefinite number, or are confined to the Twelve and (ch. ix. 1) 
St Paul himself, our Epistle does not clearly indicate (not even 


INTRODUCTION xli 


in ch. xv. 7). The office of prophet is not strictly limited to a 
class, but potentially belongs to all (ch. xiv. 30-32). That 
presbyters, here as elsewhere (Phil. i. 1; Acts xiv. 23, xx. 17, 
etc.), had been appointed by the Apostle, would be antecedently 
likely, but there is no reference to any such permanent officers 
in this, nor in the second, Epistle, not even in places where (as 
in v. 1 Sqq., Vi. I Sqq., Xiv. 32 sq.) the context would suggest the 
mention of responsible officers. The low place in the list 
occupied by administrative gifts (kvBepyjcets, cf. mporrrapevos 
in Rom.) seems to imply that administrative offices are still 
voluntarily undertaken ; so in xvi. 15 the household of Stephanas 
have a claim to deference (cf. 1 Thess. v. 12), but on the ground 
of their voluntary devotion to the diaxovia (éragav éavrors). 
The work begun by St Paul at Corinth was carried on by 
successors (Apollos alone is named, iii. 6), who ‘ water” where 
he had ‘ planted,’ ‘build upon’ the Stone which he had ‘laid’: 
they are zaidaywyo/, while he remains the one ‘Father’ in 
Christ. The Epistle, however, refers to them only in passing, 
and in no way defines their status. Probably they are to be 
classed with the prophets and teachers of ch. xii. 28 (cf. Acts 
xiii. 1). Church organization, like public worship, was possibly 
reserved for further regulation (xi. 34). 

Public Worship is the subject of a long section of the Epistle, 
in which the veiling of women, the Eucharist, and the use and 
abuse of spiritual gifts are the topics in turn immediately dealt 
with (xi, 2—-xiv.). The assembly for worship is the ék«xAnota 
(xi. 18), a term in which the O.T. idea of the ‘congregation,’ 
and the Greek democratic idea of the mass-meeting of the 
citizens, find a point of convergence. At some éxxAnoiar out- 
siders (id.@ra1, probably unbaptized persons, corresponding to 
the ‘ devout Greeks’ at a synagogue) might be present (xiv. 16, 23), 
or even heathens pure and simple (amorov); yet this would be 
not at the xvpiakor detzvov, but at a more mixed assembly (ody, 
xiv. 23). That the assemblies «is rd dayely (xi. 33) were distinct 
and periodical was apparently the case in Pliny’s time (see 
Weizsacker, Afost. Zeitalter, 568 f.). The ‘Amen’ was in use as 
the response to prayer or praise (xiv. 16). It would be hasty 
to conclude from xi. 2 sqq. that women might, without St Paul’s 
disapproval, under certain conditions, pray or prophesy in 
public: they very likely had done so at Corinth, but St Paul, 
while for the present concentrating his censure upon their doing 
so with unveiled head, had in reserve the total prohibition 
which he later on lays down (xiv. 34). Otherwise, the liberty of 
prophesying belonged to all; the utterance was to be tested 
(xiv. 29), but the test was the character of the utterance itself 
(xli. 1 sq.) rather than the sfafus of the speaker. Prayer and 


xlii INTRODUCTION 


praise, é€v yAdooy (see Hastings, DZ. art. ‘Tongues’), was a 
marked feature of public worship at Corinth, but St Paul insists 
on its inferiority to prophecy. Sunday is mentioned as the 
day against which alms were to be set apart; we may infer from 
this that it was the usual day for the principal éxxAyoia (see 
above). The purpose of this assembly was to break the bread, 
and drink the cup, of the Lord. 

In xi. 17-34 we have the /ocus classicus for the Eucharist of 
the Apostolic age. It has been argued that we have here 
a stage in the development of the sacred Rite anterior to, and 
differing materially from, what is described by Justin, Afo/. i. § 56 ; 
the difference consisting in the previous consecration of the 
elements, in Justin’s account, by the zpoeords, and reception by 
the communicants at his hands. At Corinth, on the other hand, 
(vv. 21, 33) an abuse existed in that ‘each taketh before other 
his own supper,’ so that the meal lost its character as ‘a Lord’s 
Supper.’ If the ‘consecration’ (so it is argued) were already 
at this time an essential part of the service, the abuse in question 
could not have occurred ; or at any rate St Paul’s remedy would 
have been ‘wait for the consecration’ and not ‘wait for one 
another’ (v. 33). But, in the line of development, the Corinthian 
Eucharist comes between the original institution, as described 
by St Paul and by the Evangelists, and the Eucharist of Justin.* 
In all the N.T. accounts of the Institution, the acts and words 
of Christ, and His delivery of the bread and cup after consecra- 
tion to those present, are recorded, and form the central point. 
The argument under notice assumes that this central feature 
has disappeared at the second, or Corinthian, stage of develop- 
ment, to reappear in the third, namely Justin’s, ‘This assumption 
is incredible. In carrying out the command toiro oveire, ‘do 
this,’ we cannot believe that at Corinth, or anywhere else, what 
Christ was recorded to have done was just the feature to be 
omitted. 


Quod in caena Christus gess#t 
Faciendum hoc expressit 


is an accurate expression of the characteristic which from the first 
differentiated the Common Meal into the Christian edxapioria. 
The words ‘do this’ were certainly part of the ‘tradition’ handed 
on by St Paul at Corinth (see below); and had it been “ft 
undone, the Apostle would not have failed to notice it. Further, 
the argument for the absence, at Corinth, of the acts of consecra- 
tion, assumes erroneously that ‘the Zord’s Supper’ in v. 20 “can 
be no other than the bread and the cup of the Lord in v. 27” 


* See A. W. F. Blunt, Zhe Apologies of Justin Martyr, 1911, pp. Xxxix= 
xliv, 98-101. 


INTRODUCTION xliii 


(Beet, zx Zoc.). This assumption is a reaction from the ana- 
chronism of introducing the ‘ Agape’ of later times in explanation 
of this passage. (The name Agape, see Dict. of Chr. Antiq. s.v., 
is occasionally used for the Eucharist, but more properly for the 
Common Meal from which the Eucharist had been wholly 
separated.) The Lord’s Supper (so named only here in N.T.) 
is not the Eucharist proper, still less the Agape, dut the entire 
re-enactment of the Last Supper, with the Eucharistic acts occurring 
in the course of it, as they do in the paschal meal recorded in 
the Synoptic Gospels.* In the early Church the name ‘ Lord’s 
Supper’ was not the earliest, nor the commonest, name for the 
Eucharist. It was primarily (though not quite exclusively) 
applied to the annual re-enactment of the Last Supper which 
survived after the Agape had first been separated from the 
Eucharist and then had gradually dropped out of use (Dict. of 
Chr. Antig. art. ‘Lord’s Supper’). In any case ‘the Lord’s Supper’ 
at Corinth would be already in progress when the Eucharistic 
Bread and Cup were blessed. St Paul’s censure (€xaoros yap 
tporAap ave, v. 21), and his remedy (exdéxeoGe, v. 33), relate to 
the supper which was over before (era 7o darvjoa, v. 25) the 
blessing of the Cup, and was doubtless (see note on xi. 23, 27) 
well advanced when the Eucharistic Bread was broken: what 
he blames and what he enjoins are alike compatible with the 
supposition that the procedure of the Last Supper was closely 
adhered to at Corinth. Whose duty it was to ‘preside’ (as did 
the head of the family at the Passover, our Lord at the Last 
Supper, and the zpoeorus in Justin’s time) we do not know, but 
it may be taken as certain that some one did so. Inv. 34, Ei 
Tis Tee k.T.X., We notice the first step towards the segregation 
of the Eucharistic acts proper from the joint meal in which they 
were still, as it were, embedded. The Supper, if the direction of 
v. 34 was observed, would cease to have its original character of a 
meal to satisfy hunger (still traceable in Did. x. 1, pera 10 éurdAno- 
Ojvat); it dropped out of use in connexion with the Eucharist, 
except in so far as it left traces in the ritual. As a separate, 
non-Eucharistic sacred meal (Dict. of Chr. Antiq. art. ‘ Agape’) it 
survived fora time. This separation of the Eucharist from the 
Supper, of which we here trace the origin only, was a step towards 
the shifting of the former, later than any N.T. evidence, to the 
“‘ante-lucan” hour which had become usual in Pliny’s time. 

The question of St Paul’s relation to the Eucharistic 
Institution, which only indirectly touches the doctrine of this 
Epistle, must be briefly noticed here. In their account of the 

* Dr. E. Baumgartner contends that in 1 Cor. we have a description of 


the Agape alone, without the Eucharist (Zucharistze und Agape im Urchris- 
tentum, 1909). But see Cohu, S¢ Paul, pp. 303 f. 


xliv INTRODUCTION 


Last Supper the two first Gospels stand by themselves ove 
against St Luke and St Paul in mentioning no command to 
repeat our Lord’s action. St Luke’s account, again, in the 
Western text (which is more trustworthy in its omissions than 
in its other variations), records simply the blessing first of the 
Cup, then of the Bread, with no command to repeat the action : 
what follows (Luke xxii. 19, 20, 76 iép tpav ... exyuvopevor) is 
(if with WH. we adopt the Western Text) an importation from 
1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. St Paul then, as compared with the Gospel 
record, stands alone in recording our Saviour’s command to ‘do 
this in remembrance of Me.’ Whence did he receive it? His 
answer is that he ‘received’ (the whole account) ‘from the 
Lord’ (v. 23). This may mean ‘by direct revelation,’ or may 
(as certainly in xv. 3) mean ‘received,’ as he handed it on, 
orally, the Lord being here mentioned as the ultimate (azo) 
authority for the Rite. It has been argued, on the assumptior 
that St Paul claims direct revelation to himself as the authority 
for the Christian Eucharist, that this claim is the sole source ot 
any idea that the Last Supper (or rather the Eucharistic action) 
was ordered to be repeated, that St Paul first caused it to be so 
celebrated, and that the authority of the Institution hangs upon 
a vision or revelation claimed by St Paul. Further, it is sug 
gested that the vision in question was largely coloured by the 
mysteries celebrated at Eleusis, near Athens and not far from 
Corinth (so P. Gardner, Zhe Origin of the Lords Supper, 
1903). 

The narrative of the Institution in the two first Gospels, 
though they record no express command to repeat it, renders 
the last-named suggestion somewhat gratuitous. Our Lord was 
keeping an annual feast, and His disciples certainly at that time 
expected to keep it in future: in view of this fact, of the refer- 
ences in the Acts of the Apostles (ii. 42, xx. 7) to the repetition 
of the Supper, and of its thoroughly Hebraic and Palestinian 
antecedents (cf. Bickell, Messe und Pascha; Anrich, Axtike 
Mysterienwesen, p. 127), it is much more probable that St Paul 
is here the representative of a common tradition than the author 
of an institution traceable to himself alone. The whole tone of 
the passage, in which their ‘coming together to eat’ is not 
inculcated but taken for granted, supports this view against any 
hypothesis of a practice initiated by the Apostle himself. See 
also Andersen, D. Adendmahl in d. ersten 2 Jahrhund. 1906). 

The doctrine of the Eucharist presupposed in our Epistle is 
simple, but, so far as it goes, very definite. The Bread and the 
Cup are a partaking (kowwvia) of the Lord’s Body and Blood 
(x. 16, xi. 27); and to eat ‘or’ (v. 27; ‘and,’ v. 29) drink 
unworthily, ‘not discerning the Body’ (v. 29), is to ‘eat and 


INTRODUCTION xlv 


drink judgment’ to oneself. The Body is clearly the body, not 
merely of the Church, but ‘of the Lord’; the latter words, 
added in later copies, are a correct gloss. The interpretation of 
our Lord’s words here implied takes us at any rate beyond any 
‘Zwinglian’ view of sacramental reception. The reception is, 
moreover, in commemoration (dévayvyo.s) of the Lord, and is a 
proclaiming (xatayyeAAew) of the Lord’s Death ‘till He come.’ 
We see in these words and in ch. x. 15-18 the relation of the 
Eucharist to sacrificial conceptions. To St Paul, the Death of 
Christ (ch. v. 7, érv@y) is the Christian sacrifice. To it the 
Eucharist is primarily and directly related. In ch. x. St. Paul 
(in order to drive home his warning against joining in any 
ceremonial eating of eidwAdGvra) insists, with appeal to Jewish and 
to Christian rites, that to partake of what is sacrificed is to 
become a party to the sacrificial act (and so to enter upon that 
fellowship of the worshipper with the deity which sacrifice aims 
at establishing or maintaining). It follows, then, that St Paul 
thinks of the Eucharist as the act by which Christians, collectively 
and individually, make (as it were) the Sacrifice of the Cross 
theiz own act, ‘appropriate’ it, maintain and deepen their 
fellowship with God through Christ. The Christian Passover, 
once for all slain (v. 7), is eaten at every Eucharist. This is 
an essential agreement with the statements, closely identical in 
substance, by which Chrysostom (Hom. in Hebr. xvii.) and 
Augustine (c. Faust. xx. 18) independently justify the term 
‘sacrifice’ as applied to the Eucharist. 

Baptism is frequently referred to in our Epistle (i. 13-16, x. 
2, xil. 13; cf. vi. 11), but the doctrinal reference in each case 
is indirect. The dzeAovcace of vi. 11 (‘ye washed them away 
from yourselves’) must be compared with Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16, 
and Rom. vi. 3, 4. There can be little doubt that the reference 
of vi. 11 at least includes baptism ; comparing then the év ro 
mvevpart there with xil. 13, €v €v mvevpari, we see how closely 
associated was baptism with the Holy Spirit as its sphere and its 
underlying power (Tit. iii. 5). It must not be forgotten that St 
Paul’s readers had been baptized as adults. This fact, and the 
sharp contrast between the old heathen life and the new life 
entered upon at baptism, brought out very strongly the signific- 
ance of the Rite. 

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as regards the Personality of 
the Spirit, comes out in xii. 11, ka6&s BovAerac ; while in ch. ii. 11, 
where the relation of the Spirit to God is seen to be not less 
intimate than that of man’s spirit to man, we have the Divinity 
of the Spirit unmistakably taught. The Spirit is “the self- 
conscious life” of God,—but not an impersonal function of God. 
The gift of the Spirit, accordingly, constitutes the man, in whom 


xlvi INTRODUCTION 


the Spirit dwells, a Temple of God (iii. 16). There is the 
indwelling of the Spirit, common to all members of Christ, the 
instrument of the sanctification which is to be attained by all ; 
and there is also the special energy of the Spirit, different in 
different persons, which equips them for some special service as 
members of the one body (xii.). So St Paul himself, “ incident- 
ally and with great reserve,” claims the guidance of the Spirit of 
God for Himself (vii. 40). The inspiration of the prophet is not 
such as to supersede self-control (xiv. 32), as it did in the super- 
ficially similar phenomena of heathen ecstasy (xii. 2, 3). (See 
on this subject Swete, Zhe Holy Spirit in the New Testament, 
pp. 176-192.) 


§ VI. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE. 


The general characteristics of St Paul’s style, especially in his 
letters of the Aegean period, are of course markedly present in 
this Epistle. But it lacks the systematic sequence of marshalled 
argument so conspicuous in the Epistle to the Romans; it is 
more personal than that Epistle, while yet the feeling is not so 
high-wrought as it is in Galatians and in the Second Epistle. But 
warmth of affection, as well as warmth of remonstrance and 
censure, characterize the Epistle throughout. The two Epistles 
to the Corinthians and that to the Galatians stand, in respect of 
direct personal appeal, in a class by themselves among St 
Paul’s Epistles. Philippians is equally personal, but there 
everything speaks of mutual confidence and sympathy, unclouded 
by any reproach or suspicion. The three Epistles to the 
Corinthians and the Galatians are not less sympathetic, but the 
sympathy is combined with anxious solicitude, and alternates 
with indignant remonstrance. The earlier letters to the 
Thessalonians, again, presuppose an altogether simpler relation 
between the Apostle and his converts: his solicitude for them is 
directed to the inevitable and human perils—instability, over- 
wrought expectation of the last things, moral weakness—incident 
to sincere but very recent converts from heathenism. 

In our Epistle and its two companions the personal situation is 
more complicated and precarious: a definite disturbing cause is at 
work ; the Apostle himself is challenged and is on the defensive ; 
the personal question has far-reaching correlatives, which touch 
the foundations of the Gospel. 

In our Epistle these phenomena are less acutely present than 
in the other two. The doctrinal issue, which in Galatians stirs 
the Apostle to the depths, is felt rather than apparent (xv. 56, 
vii. 18, 19); the personal question is more prominent (iv. 3, ix. 


INTRODUCTION xlvii 


2, 3, etc.), but less so than in Galatians, far less so than in the 
Second Epistle. 

In our Epistle the Apostle, in asserting and defending his 
Apostolic status and mission, never for a moment vacates his 
position of unquestionable authority, nor betrays a doubt as to 
his readers’ acceptance of it. 

One great general characteristic of our Epistle is the firmness 
of touch with which St Paul handles the varied matters that come 
before him, carrying back each question, as it comes up for 
treatment, to large first principles. The petty oyicpara at 
Corinth are viewed in the light of the essential character of 
the Gospel and of the Gospel ministry, the moral disorders in the 
light of membership of Christ who has bought us all for Himself, 
the question of marriage, or meats offered to idols, or the 
exercise of spiritual gifts, from the point of view of “the higher 
expediency,” that is to say, of the subordination of the temporal 
to the eternal. And where a commandment of the Lord is on 
record, whether in the sphere of morality (vii.) or of positive 
ordinance (xi.), its authority claims unquestioning obedience. 

In discussing spiritual gifts, the instinct of “the higher 
expediency ” is sublimated into the principle, or rather passion, 
of Christian charity or love, and its exposition rises to a height 
of inspired eloquence which would alone suffice to give our 
Epistle a place of pre-eminence among the Epistles of the New 
Testament. Side by side with this marvellous passage we must 
place the rising tide of climax upon climax in ch. xv. The 
first climax is the emphatic close in v. 11 of the fundamental 
assertions which go before. Then, after the sombre earnestness 
of vv. 12-20, the Resurrection and its sequel are enforced ina 
passage of growing intensity culminating in the close of v, 28. 
Then a lull (vv. 29-34), and in v. 35 we begin the final ascent, 
which reaches its height in v. 55, the ‘full close’ of vv. 56-58 
forming a peroration of restful confidence. 

In these passages there is no sign of rhetorical artifice, but 
the glow of ardent conviction, gaining the very summit of effect, 
because effect is the last thing thought of. ‘Sincerity’ of style, 
the note of Pauline utterance, is as conspicuous in these towering 
heights as in his simplest salutations, his most matter-of-fact 
directions on practical subjects. For the rest, this Epistle 
exhibits all the characteristics of St Paul’s style, especially as we 
have it in the four letters of the Aegean period of his ministry, 
his period of intensest controversy. Equipped with a language 
hardly adequate to the rich variety and subtlety of his thought 
or to the intensity of his feeling, he is ever struggling to express 
more than he actually says ; the logical sequence is broken by 
the intrusion of new ideas, feeling supersedes grammar and 


xlvili INTRODUCTION 


forbids the completion of a clause (e.g. ix. 15). The scope of 
the Epistle, practical direction rather than theological argument, 
explains the absence of the characteristic dpa oty so common in 
Romans ; generally, in fact, the argument here is less abstruse, 
and is comparatively easy to follow (see below). But it is not 
always in the form that we should expect in a modern writer. 
In x. 30, for example, he asks, ‘Why do I incur blame for thai for 
which I give thanks ?’—meaning, ‘ Why give thanks for what 
involves me in blame ?’—just as in Rom. vii. 16, where he means 
that ‘if Z hate what I do, I (by hating it) assent to the law,’ he 
similarly inverts the ideas, saying, ‘If Z do what J hate,’ etc. 
At times, again, he assumes a connexion of ideas obvious perhaps 
to his readers, but no longer so to the modern reader, as in xi. 10 
(da trois dyyéAovs). The same consideration to some extent 
applies to his enigmatic reference (xv. 29) to the practice of 
‘ baptizing for the dead.’ It may be added that the mention of 
such a practice with no word of blame does not, in view of St 
Paul’s style, justify the inference that he sanctioned or approved 
it. Heis so engrossed in his immediate point—that the Resurrec- 
tion is presupposed by the whole life of the Christian community, 
that he does not turn aside to parry any wrong inference that 
might be drawn from his words. Similarly, in viii. ro he insists on 
the bad example to the weak of taking part in a sacrificial feast, 
as if the action were in itself indifferent, whereas we learn later 
on (x. 14 and following) that the act is fer se idolatrous. Or 
again, in xi. 5, from the prohibition against a woman prophesying 
unveiled, it has been inferred that she might do so if properly 
veiled, whereas in xiv. 34 we find this entirely disallowed. It is, 
in fact, St Paul’s manner to hold a prohibition as it were in 
reserve, producing it when the occasion demands it. 

The language of this Epistle, as of St Paul generally, is the 
Greek of a Hellenist Jew; not necessarily of one who thought 
in Hebrew but spoke in Greek, but rather of a Jew of the Dis- 
persion, accustomed to use the Greek of the Jewish community 
of his native city, and conversant with the Old Testament 
Scriptures in their Greek version. His studies under Gamaliel 
had doubtless been wholly Hebraic, and he could speak fluently 
in the Aramaic dialect of Palestine (Acts xxii.). But once only, 
in this Epistle at least, does he certainly go behind the LXX 
to the Hebrew (iii. 19). His language is not ‘literary’ Greek ; 
he shows little sign of knowledge of Greek authors, except in 
current quotations [the language of Rom. ii. 14, 15 has close 
points of contact with Aristotle, gained perhaps indirectly 
through the Greek schools of Tarsus]; even the quotation 
(xv. 33) from Menander’s Z%azs is without the elision necessary 
to scansion. We miss the subtle play of mood, versatile com- 


INTRODUCTION xlix 


mand of particles, and artistic structure of periods, that char 
acterize classical Greek (see Weiss, Zutrod. to V.T. § 16. 7). 

The extent to which St Paul’s thought has been influenced 
by Greek thought has been sometimes exaggerated. But the 
influence of Hellenism in shaping the forms in which he ex- 
pressed his thought can be clearly traced in some cases. We 
can see that he becomes gradually familiar with certain phz/o- 
sophical terms. None of the following are found in the Epistles 
to the Thessalonians: yvoo.s, copia, otveots, cvveidyots, oxnpa, 
all of which are found in r Corinthians and later Epistles. The 
following also are not found in the Epistles to the Thessalonians, 
but are found in one or more of the Epistles which are Hes 
than 1 Corinthians : aicOnows, didvova, @evrys, poppy, dpecis. 
Perhaps dxpacia and iduirys ought to be added to the first 
group, and dxparijs to the second. In his essay on “St Paul 
and Seneca,” Lightfoot has shown what parallels there are 
between expressions in the Pauline Epistles and expressions 
which were in use among the Stoics. The meaning may be 
very different, but there is a similarity which is perhaps not 
wholly accidental in the wording (see notes on iii. 21, iv. 8, vi. 7, 
PQs Vil; 315033, 35): Vl. 4, 1X. 25, Xl. 14, xiil4)): 

We may perhaps assign the argumentative form, into which 
so much of St Paul’s language is thrown, to the influence of 
Hellenism. In this he is very different from other N.T. writers 
who did not come so decidedly under Greek influence. Every 
one who has tried knows how difficult it is to make an analysis 
of the Epistles of St James and of St John. Perhaps no one 
has succeeded in making an analysis of either which convinced 
other students that the supposed sequence of thought was 
really in the writer’s mind. But there is little difference of 
opinion as to the analysis of St Paul’s Epistles. And not only 
is the sequence of thought in most cases clear, but the separate 
arguments which constitute the sequence are clear also. They 
may not always seem to be convincing, but they can be put 
into logical shape, with premiss and conclusion. Such a 
method of teaching is much more Western than Oriental, much 
more Greek than Jewish. 


The following ts a list of words peculiar to 1 Corinthians 
in N.T.F 


dyap.0s, Vila 5); EX," 32, 343 * dyevys, i. 28; * adazavos, ix. 18 ; 
* ddjAws, ix. 26; aiviypa, Xlil. 12; dkataxddvmros, xi. 5, 133 
dkwv, ix. 173 * dperaxivytos, xv. 58; dvagis, vi. 2; dvatiws, 
+ An asterisk indicates that the word is not found in the LXX. 
ad 


l INTRODUCTION 


xi. 273 dvOpiloua xvi. 135 dvtiAnpyis, xil. 28; * dreevOepos, 
Vil. 223 * drepirmdotws, Vil. 353, dr ddeukts, ll. 43 Gpyxerextov, 
til TO} dorarew, iv; 325 do xnpovew, vil. 36, Xill. 53 aoxnpwr, 
Xl. 233 Gropos, xv. 52; adds, xiv. 73 ; * Axaids, XVi. 17 dipuxos, 
XIV. qs Bpoxos, Vii. 35> yewpytor, ili. 9; 3 Be a Nant TV; |e ; 
Satneots, Xil. 4, 55 6; a= Seaway evTis, XIV. ; duozrep, Viil. 13; 
x P45 * dovdaywyew, i ix. 27; dpdocopat, ili. ee Svrgn peer lV. 13; 
éykpatevouat, Vil. 9, 1X. 253 eldwAtov, Vili. 10; exvydw, XV. 343 
ee xv. 8; * évépynpa, xii. 6, 10; * Extath, 1X. 12 5 evTpo7n, 

Bs) RV. 34.5 “eaipw, Vv. 133 coptalo, v. 8; exifavarcos, IV. 9; 
hai: x. 6; erurmdopat, Vil. 18; Eppyvia, il.) vO," Rive BOs 
2* éppqverrys, xiv. 28; érepoyAwogos, xiv. 213; * edadpedpos, Vi. i. 
35.3 vonpos, XIV. 9; edo xnpoovvy, Mil. 235 Ades, XV. 333 7XEW,; 
xl. 15 * Onpiopaxew, XV. 323 tapa, xil. 9, 28, 30; * tepoOuros, 
x oe kaha, iii, 12% katadvmropat, Xi; 46, 73 KATATTPUVVYpAL, 
Bais KaTaxpaopar, Vil; Gi, AXA TS.s ?* knusu, 1x..9)5 * kopdw, Xi. 
14, 153 Kopy, Xi. 15; mugeiee, xii. 285 xvpBadov, ri 1; 
* Noyta, xvi. I, 2; Aoidopos, V. II, Vi. 103 Soke Vil. 273 * pak- 
edAov, X. 253 peOvoos, Vv. II, Vi. 10; jbrasjes Vl. 33 pwpila, 1. 18, 
21, 23, ll. 14, lil. 19; vy, xv. 313 * vnmalu, xiv. 20; * dAoOpeuris, 
x. tos optria, XV. 335 * ooppyots, Xil. 17; mailw, X. 7; Tapa- 
pvoia, xiv. 3; mapedpevery (ix. 13); wdipodos, Evi. 7 ; 5 * miBos, il. 43 
mepixdbappa, Ive 03 5 Teptynpa, iv. 133 * mepmepevopat, poh) a 
TTNVA, XV. 39; * ruKrevo, bea 3 puri), XV. 523 ovpopor, Vil. 35, 
x 33,5 Tippwvos, Vil. he cwyvapyn, Vil. 6; * cuvlyntyntys, i. 20; 
ouvpeptCopar, I 1k, he's Thy [LA XV. 235 Eades xX, IT 5 * brépakpos, 
vil. 30; prdoverxos, xl. 16; Ppyy, xiv. 20 3 xolkds, xvi. 47, 48, 49 ; 

* ypynorevopat, xiii. 4; *ineceenes xv. 8. 

None of these words (nearly 100 in all) occur anywhere else 
in N.T. But a few of them are doubtful, owing to uncertainty 
of text; and a few of them occur in quotations, and therefore 
are no evidence of St Paul’s vocabulary, e.g. 700s, é6uiALa, Spac- 
cvopat, eEaipw. 

The number of words which are found in this Epistle and 
elsewhere in N.T., but not in any of the other Pauline Epistles,+ 
is still larger ; and the extent of these two lists warns us to be 
cautious when we use vocabulary as an argument with regard 
to authorship. Statistics with regard to 1 Corinthians are all 
the more valuable, both because of the length of the Epistle, 
and also because the authorship is certain on quite other grounds. 
Putting the two lists together, we have nearly 220 words in 
1 Corinthians, which are not found in any other of the Pauline 
Epistles. A fact of that kind puts us on our guard against 
giving great weight to the argument that Ephesians, or Colossians, 


+ It is assumed here that the Pastoral Epistles (but not the Epistle to the 
Hebrews) were written by St Paul. 


INTRODUCTION li 


or the Pastoral Epistles, cannot have been written by the Apostle, 
because of the large number of words in each of them which do 
not occur in any other letter written by him. There are far 
more important tests. 


Words peculiar to 1 Corinthians in the Pauline Epistles. 


ayvocia, a 345 dyopate, vi. 20, Vil. 23, 303 adn Aos, xiv. 8; 
aks Wayso s dxpacta, Vii. a iaddlo, Xiti. Es d[LEplyLvos, Vil. 

= dpmeov, ix: 7 dvax piven, ten times ; dvapvyots, xe 24, 25; 
em XVI. 33 ; dpyvpiov, ill, 12; 3 dporprdw, i LOl dpras, Velo: 
IT, Vi. Io ; Appwaros, xi: oo? come XV. 41; drips, IV. IO, 
xii. a3: pavennias XIV. 73 aUpwov, XV. 32; ‘yapuilor, Vil. 38 ; Ceara 
xi. 253 deimvov, xi, 20, 21; diaipéw, xii. 12; Bean ds, is ne 
dreppenvevor, mii. 39, XIV. 5, 13, 235 dudexa, xy. 55 eau, xX. 135 
cidwAOGuTos, Vill. I, 4, 7, 10, X. 19 ; eikoot, x. 8; exBaors, me 135 
exeipaco, x2 Q) edecwds, XV LOG EVVO}LOS, ik Da VOXOS, Seize 
éfeoriv, Vi. 12, Xii. 43 ecovrtalw, Viera) will, As éravu, XVe LOS 
State vile 35; errikerpa, ix: 26" écorTpor, Riles ze: oe 
1 265 nee XVi, 12} EDO AMMO, Vii. 355 Xil. 24; Oarrw, xv. 4; 
Géarpor, i - 93 Go, Vv. 7, X 20; Lepov, IX. 135 ixvs, xv. 39; 
are Xill. es KATAKALo, iil. 15; KOTAKELLAL, Vill. 10; KaTapevo, 
xvi. 6; xiGapa, xiv. 7; xibapilu, XIV. 7 Kuvdvvever, XV. 30; KAdw, 
Ty xt, 24} KOKKOS, XV. 373 Kopevvupat, iY. 8; KTTVOS, KV! 26;5 
KUPLAKOS, Xl. 20; paivopat, XiV. 23; padaxos, Vi. 9; payvbor, RzOr 
potxos, Vl. 93 poAdtvw, Vill. 7; Sr guke LV WIG, SRV OR wikos. 
XV. 54, 55, 573 Evpdopar, xi 55540: oAws, Way CHA Fe XV ae. 
doakis, XL. 25, 26; oval, 1x. 16; ovderore, xill. 8 ; Soden, Vas 2. 
Tapaye, Vil. Bye mapogvvopat, Xl. 53 TAXA, Vv. 7; TEVTAKOTLOL, 
xv. 6; wevtnKoaTy, Xvi. 8 ; 3 TeptBoAavov, > a Wy mepuriOnpr, Xil. (233 
mAeiaros, SiVi 27 3 3 TVEVPATLKOS, ii, 13, EA; Towpatver, ix: Toipvn, 
ix. 73 70Aepos, xiv. 8; mopa, X. 4; Topvevin, vi. 18, x. 8; mopvn, 
Vi. 15, 163 zornptov, eight times ; TpOTKUV EW, XIV. 25)5 Daan cla, 
eleven times ; mwrew, X. 25; aapeon iv, 215 carrito, xy. 527 
oeAnvn, XV. 41; oradtov, ix.) 2405 cup Batver, X. IL; ovvayw, Vv. 4; 
guveidoy, | IV. 43 ovvépxopat, seven a ; cvveros, i TQ ; ovv7deua, 
Wi 7,51: 16-5 oworerhu, Vil. 29; * oxiopa, TO, xi iO, Ail. 25: 
oxoAalw, Vil. 5; } THpHOLWS, Vil. IQ 3 Tiptos, ill. 12; Toivuv, 1X. 26; 
trnperys, iv. ee * trwmalo, ix. 27; hurevw, iii. 6, 7, 8, ix. 7; 
XaAxos, Xlli. I xopros, ili, 12; Veubondeme XV. 153 Yuxikds, 
ll. 14, XV. 44, ey Yopilo, xii. 3. 

There are a few words which are common to this Epistle 
and one or more of the Pastoral Epistles, but are found nowhere 

¢ As Schmiedel says about 1 Thessalonians: Begniigt man sich nicht mit 


mechanischem Zihlen, alphabetischem Aufreihen und dem fast werthlosen 
Achten auf die timaké Neyopeva. 


lil INTRODUCTION 


else in N.T. These are, aparain, XV. 53, 543 ddodw, i 1X. 9, 10 
(in a quotation) ; éxxafaipw, v. 7; * cvvBacrevu, iv. 8; trepoxy, 
il, 1. There are a good many more which are common to this 
Epistle and one or more of the Pastoral Epistles, and which 
are found elsewhere in N.T., although not in other Epistles of 
St Paul. But these are of less importance, although all links 
between the Pastoral Epistles and the unquestionably genuine 
Epistles are of value. 


Phrases peculiar to 1 Corinthians in N.T. 


9 copia Tov KOTjLOV, 1. 20, lil. 18. 

ol dpxovtes TOV ai@vos TovTou, li. 6, 8. 

T™po TOV aidver, il. 7. 

TO TVEvpLA TOU KOo[LOV, ll. 12. 

@cod cvvepyoi, iil. 9. 

Touro b¢ pup, Vil. 29, XV. 503 ef. ‘Ss 15,<56: 
Inootv TOV KUptov npov édpaxa, ix. 1; cf. John xx. 25. 
TO ToTHpLov THS EvAoyias, xX. 16. 

motnpiov Kupiov, x. 21. 

Kupiakov Seimvov, Xi. 20. 

cis THY epnv avapvynou, Xi. 24, 25: ? Luke xxii. 19. 
TO ToTHpLov TOU KUpLoV, Xi. 27. 

ei TUXOL, XIV. 10, XV. 37; Cf. Tuxdv, xvi. 6. 

70 1A€loToV, XIV. 27. 

ev atop, ev pity dpOadpod, xv. 52. 

Mapav aa, xvi. 22. 


Quotations from the O.T. 


The essay on the subject in Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 
pp. 302-307, should be consulted; also Swete, Jntroduction to 
the O.T. in Greek, pp. 381-405. The number of quotations in 
1 Corinthians is about thirty, and none of the Epistles has so 
many, excepting Romans and Hebrews; and none quotes from 
so many different books, excepting Romans. In 1 Corinthians, 
eleven different books are quoted; Isaiah about eight times, 
Psalms four or five times, Deuteronomy four times, Genesis four, 
Exodus two or three, Numbers once or twice, Zechariah once or 
twice ; Job, Jeremiah, Hosea, Malachi, once each. In several 
cases the quotation resembles more than one passage in the 
O.T., and we cannot be sure which passage the Apostle has in 
his mind. In other cases there is a conflation of two passages, 
both of which are clearly in his mind. Consequently, exact 
numbers cannot always be given. All the quotations are short, 
and it is probable that all of them were made from memory. 


INTRODUCTION lili 


There are no long citations, such as we have in Hebrews, which 
no doubt were in most cases copied. 

If, with Swete, we may count as direct quotations those 
which (though not announced by a formula, such as xadds 
yéypamrar) appear from the context to be intended as quotations, 
or agree verbatim with some context in the O.T., then at least 
half the quotations in 1 Corinthians are direct.* They are— 


1 LO sayy XXIX,, 14 Xo 7 — Hxod. xxxily 6 

ire seri. 24: x. 26 = Ps, xxiv. I 
(1 Sam. ii. 10) 

ii. 9 = Isa. lxiv. 4 (?) SVey 2 SAV 
Mt) —slsa. Xi ehs V2 7 — See VALS 
ii.) 19)— JOb)Vv. 13 XV S29 sa Xx tS 
120s XClva Dd Sve 5 Genuellye7 
vi. 16 = Gen. ii. 24 XV. 54 = Isa. xxv.S 

Ix.O)—e Deut axxve 4 xv. 55 = Hos. xiii. 14 


Out of these thirty quotations from the O.T., about twenty- 
five are in exact or substantial agreement with the LXX, and this 
is in accordance with evidence derived from the other Epistles. 
Sometimes the variations from the LXX bring the citation closer 
to the Hebrew, as if the Apostle were consciously or uncon- 
sciously guided by the Hebrew in diverging from the LXX, e.g. 
in xv. 54=Isa. xxv. 8. Sometimes he seems to make changes 
in order to produce a wording more suitable for his argument, 
e.g. in ili, 20=Ps. xciv. 11, where he substitutes copay for 
avOpo7wv, Or in i. 19=Isa. xxix. 14, where he substitutes 
abernow for kpvw (cf. Ps. xxxill. 10). 

The quotations which are in agreement with the LXX are 
these— 


vi. 16 = Gen. ii. 24 Xx. 2h = Maly 7n12 
ix. 9 = Deut. xxv. 4 Xe) 200 E Seem 
Te LOC XXXII O XV. 32 = Isa. xxii. 13 
x. 20 = Deut. xxxii. 17 xv. 45 = Gen. ii. 7. 


In the following instances there is substantial agreement with 
the LXX, the difference in some cases being slight :— 


PetOp— isa, xxix. 14 xX. 22) =) Deut xxx 21 
iy Si == OG ws ap x17 Geneve yr 
Meetor— sae xle 13 xi, 25 = Exod. xxiv. 8; 
Zech. ix. UL 

ills) 20) — E's, XCiV., Tt xili, § = Zech, viii. 17 
v. 7 = Exod. xii. 21 Xv. 25 = Ps, cx. 1 

v. 13 = Deut. xvii. 7, xxl. 21, XV, 27) —sPSevieO 

xxii. 24 
x 5 — Num: xiv. 16 xv. 47 = Gen. il. 7 
x0) — NUM. x15. 345 4. xv. 55 = Hos. xiii. 14 








* The large number of direct quotations shows that it is not correct to say 
that, in teaching at Corinth, the Apostle left the O.T. foundation of the 
Gospel more or less in the background : see esp. xv. 3, 4, V. 7. 


liv INTRODUCTION 


Perhaps under the same head should be placed— 
li, 9 = Isa. Ixiv. 4, Ixv. 17; and xiv. 21 = Isa. xxviii. 11. 


But in both of these there is divergence from both the Hebrew 
and the LXX. 

In a few cases he seems to show a preference for the Hebrew, 
or possibly for some version not known to us. 


e207 — Gay KIX.) City XXX, TO mv. 2h — Isa, Xlv, 4. 
LO — J OD v.03 xv. 54 = Isa. xxv. 8 


In xv. 57, 73 d€ Ged xapis 7H SiddvTe Hiv 7d vixos resembles 
2 Mace. x. 38, evAdyouv TH Kupiw 76 76 vixos abrots didovr, but this 
is probably an accidental coincidence. 


§ VII. THE TEXT OF THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE 
CORINTHIANS. 


The problem of textual criticism—the historical problem of 
establishing, as nearly as possible, the earliest ascertainable 
form of the text—exists for all N.T. books under very 
similar conditions. The great wealth of material, the early 
divergence of readings which can be more or less grouped into 
classes constituting types of text, and then the practical super- 
session of divergent types by an eclectic text which became 
dominant and which is represented in the greater number of 
later MSS.,—these are the general phenomena. But the different 
collections of N.T. books—the Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, 
Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse—have each of them special histories 
and their textual phenomena special features. Our Epistle shares 
the special phenomena of the Pauline collection, and in this 
collection it has some distinctive features of its own. 


GENERAL FEATURES. 


During the first century or so after they were written, 
the books of the N.T. were copied with more freedom 
and less exactness than was afterwards the case. With the 
exception of some readings, probably editorial in character, 
distinctive of the ‘Syrian’ text (practically the Zextus Receptus), 
nearly all the various readings in the N.T. originated in this 
early period. In a very few cases, readings, which cannot have 
been original, are traceable to so early a date, antecedent to all 
ascertainable divergence of texts, that the original readings dis- 
placed by them have not survived. These are the cases of 
“primitive corruption,” where conjecture is needed to restore 


INTRODUCTION lv 


the original text. ‘These cases are rare in the entire N.T., and 
very rare in the Pauline Epistles. In our Epistle there is only 
one probable example, namely, xil. 2 6re, where zoré, not 
preserved in any document, was very likely written by St. Paul 
(see note 7 /oc.). 


WESTERN TEXT. 


Apart from such rare cases, the early freedom of copying has 
bequeathed to us a congeries of readings amongst which we 
distinguish a large class which, while probably (and in many 
cases certainly) not original, yet remount to an antiquity higher 
than that of any extant version, and which are as a whole 
common to the Greek text embodied in many early MSS., and 
to the early versions, especially the Old Latin. To these 
readings the collective term ‘Western’ is applied. It is probably 
a misnomer, but is too firmly rooted in current use to be con- 
veniently discarded. ‘This class of readings, or type of text, is 
the centre of many interesting problems, especially as regards 
the Lucan books. 


ALEXANDRIAN READINGS. 


There is also a body of readings not assignable to this type 
but nevertheless of very early origin; these readings are of a 
kind apparently due to editorial revision rather than to tran- 
scriptional licence, while yet they are not, on transcriptional 
grounds, likely to belong to the original text. These readings, 
mainly preserved in texts of Egyptian provenance, have been 
referred by Westcott and Hort to the textual labours of the 
Alexandrians. This limited group, although its substantive 
existence has been questioned (e.g. by Salmon), is due probably 
to a true factor in the history of the text. 


THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 
(1) Syrian Readings. 


In the Pauline Epistles, the first task of criticism is to 
distinguish readings which, whether adopted or not in the 
‘Syrian’ or ‘received’ text, are in their origin pre-Syrian. Such 
readings will be preserved in one or more of the great uncials 
x ABCODG, of the important cursives 17, 67**, in the older 
witnesses for the Old Latin text, in one of the Egyptian Versions, 
or by certain* quotation in some Christian writer before 

* Quotations in patristic texts are liable, both in MS. transmission and in 


lvi INTRODUCTION 


250 A.D. The chances of a genuine pre-Syrian reading, not 
preserved in any of the above sources, lingering in any later MSS. 
or authorities, is so slight as to be negligible. 


RESIDUAL EARLY TEXT. 


Having eliminated distinctively ‘Syrian’ readings, we are 
still confronted with great diversity of text, and with the task of 
classifying the material. We have to identify readings distinc- 
tively ‘ Western,’ and to segregate from the residue such readings 
as may prove assignable to Alexandrian recension; the ultimate 
residuary readings, or ‘ neutral’ text, will, with very rare excep- 
tions, represent the earliest form of the text that can by any 
historical process be ascertained. This, the most important 
problem, is also the most difficult, as we are dealing with a 
period (before 250 A.D.) anterior to the date of any existing 
document. The question is,—In what extant authorities do we 
find a text approximately free from traces of the causes of varia- 
tion noted above: early liberties with the text in copying, and 
Alexandrian attempts at its restoration ? 

Briefly, we need in the Pauline Epistles, for readings inde- 
pendent of the ‘ Western’ text, the support of § or B. Readings 
confined to DEFG, the Old Latin, or patristic quotations 
(apart from Alexandria), are probably ‘Western.’ The dis- 
tinctively Alexandrian readings will be attested by 8 AC P, some 
cursives, Alexandrian Fathers, and Egyptian Versions. But 
these authorities do not zpso facto prove the Alexandrian character 
of a reading, which is matter for delicate and discriminating 
determination. It must be added that the readings classed as 
Alexandrian are neither many nor, as a rule, important. The 
purely Alexandrian type of text is an entity small in bulk, as 
compared with the ‘ Western.’ 

As a result of the above lines of inquiry, we find that in the 
Pauline Epistles, as elsewhere, B is the most constant single 
representative of the ‘ Neutral’ type of text ; but it has, in these 
Epistles only, an occasional tendency to incorporate ‘ Western’ 
readings, akin to those of G.  &, on the other hand, which in the 
N.T. generally bears more traces than B of mixture of (pre- 
Syrian) texts, is freer from such traces in the Pauline Epistles 
than elsewhere. Of other MSS. of the Pauline Epistles, neutral 
readings are most abundant in ACP 17, and in the second 
hand of 67. See E. A. Hutton, An Atlas of Textual Criticism, 


pp: 43 f. 


print, to assimilation to the received text ; we must rely only on critically 
edited patristic texts. 


INTRODUCTION lvii 


AUTHORITIES FOR THIS EPISTLE. 


The First Epistle to the Corinthians is preserved in the 


following main documents :— 


yA 


QW P} 


Fa 


a 


=o 


Greek Uncial MSS. 


(Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, 
the only MS. containing the whole N.T. 

(Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the 
British Museum. 

(Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. 

(Fifth century.) The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest ; now 
at Paris. Lacks vii. 18 év dxpoBvorig—-ix. 6 Tod py 
epyaleoOar: xiii. 8 ravoovtat—xv. 40 GdAG €repa. 

(Sixth century.) Codex Claromontanus ; now at Paris. A 
Graeco-Latin MS. xiv. 13 616 6 AaAGy—22 onpetov éoriv 
is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subse- 
quent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected 
the MS. (see Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 418-422). 

(Ninth century.) At St Petersburg. A copy of D, and 
unimportant. 

(Late ninth century.) Codex Augiensis (from Rey 
now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G; 
any case, secondary to G, from which it very ely 
varies (see Gregory, p. 429). 

(Seventh century.) Coisl. i.; at Paris. A MS. of Gen.- 
Kings, containing N.T. passages added by the scribes as 
marginal notes, including 1 Cor. vii. 39, xi. 29. 

(Late ninth century.) ‘The Codex Bornerianus ; at Dresden. 
Interlined with the Latin (in minuscules), Lacks 1 Cor. 
ili. 8-16, vi. 7-14 (as F). 

(Sixth century.) Coisl. 202. At Paris (the part containing 
X. 22-29, xi. 9-16). An important witness, but unhappily 
seldom available. The MS. is scattered in seven different 
libraries, having been employed for bindings. 

(Fifth century.) Codex Muralti vi. At St Petersburg. 
Contains xv. 53 Tovro—-xvi. 9 avéw. 

(Ninth century.) Codex S. Synod. xevili. Lacks i. 1-vi. 13 
tavTnv Kai: Vill. 7 Teves de—vill. 11 dwéBaver. 

(Ninth century.) Codex Angelicus. At Rome. 

(Ninth century.) Harl. 5913*; at the British Museum. 
Contains xv. 52 cadmice to the end of xvi. The MS. 
also contains fragments of 2 Corinthians and (in some 
leaves now at Hamburg) of Hebrews. 


lviii INTRODUCTION 


P (Ninth century.) Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest 
acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. 
Lacks vil. 15 tpas 6 @eds—17 wepiraret: Xii. 23 Tov 
owpatos—xill. 5 ov Aoyi—: xiv. 23 7) arurTo—3g TO AadAEiV pay. 
A good type of text in St Paul’s Epistles. 

® (Fifth century.) [Papyrus] Porfirianus Chiovensis. Contains 
i. 17 oyov wa py-ovvlyntyt (20); vi. 13 Te 0 Ocos—15 par 
[a vpwy peAdy |X| piorolv, vi. 16-18 (fragmentary), vii. 3-14 
(fragmentary). The only papyrus uncial MS. of the N.T. 

Ww (Eighth or ninth century.) Codex Athous Laurae, 172 
(or B 52). 

S (Same date.) Codex Athous Laurae. Contains i. 1-v. 8, 
xiii. 8 etre 5€ zpop—xvi. 24. 

3 (Fifth century.) Vatic. Gr. 2061. Contains iv. 4-vi. 16, 
Xll. 23—-XiV. 21, XV. 3—xvi. r. A palimpsest, from Rossano, 
perhaps originally from Constantinople. Its readings are 
not yet available. 

It will be seen that 8 ABL¥® contain the whole Epistle, 
CDFGKP nearly the whole, while F*HI?MQSaQ contain 
but small portions. The oldest MSS. are s B of the fourth century, 
AC I?Q dof the fifth, and D H of the sixth. Marks of punctua- 
tion are very few in 8A BC D H;; they are more frequent in G. 
(On the punctuation see Scrivener (ed. 4), vol. 1. p. 48; Gregory, 
vol. ili. pp. 111-115.) 


Cursive MSS. 


The Epistles of St Paul are to be found in some 480 cursives, 
of which we mention only one or two as of special interest. 

17. (Ev. 33, Act 13. Ninth century.) - At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). 
See Westcott and Hort., Zztrod. S§ 211, 212. 

37. (Ev. 69, Act 31, Apoc. 14. Fifteenth century.) The well- 
known Leicester codex. Contains a good text. 

47. Bodleian. Roe 16. (Eleventh century.) 

67. (Act 66, Apoc. 34. Eleventh century.) At Vienna. The 
marginal corrections (67**) embody very early readings, 
akin to those of M (supra). See Westcott and Hort, 
Introd. § 212. 


Versions. 


The Op Latin of this Epistle is transmitted in the Graeco- 
Latin uncials D E FG, the Latin of which is cited as defg. 
d has a text independent of D, but in places adapted to it; 
€ approximates more to the Vulgate; g is a Vulgate text except 
in Romans and 1 Corinthians, where it is based on the Old Latin, 


INTRODUCTION lix 


f a Vulgate text with Old Latin admixture. The Greek text of 
each of these MSS. has to some extent influenced the Latin. 

The Epistle is also contained in 

x (Ninth century.) Bodleian; Laud. Lat. 108, E. 67, a thrice- 
corrected text, having much in common with d. 
m (Ninth century.) At Rome; the Speculum pseudo-Augustin- 
tanum. 
r (Sixth century.) The Freisingen MS., now at Munich. 

The two last named contain fragments only. 

On the Vulgate, Egyptian (Bohairic or Coptic and Thebaic 
or Sahidic),* Syriac, Armenian, and Gothic, reference may be 
made to Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. Ixvisq. As to the 
Syriac, it should be noted that the later (or Harclean) Syriac 
has some more ancient readings (Westcott and Hort, Zztrod. 
p. 156 sq.); we have not, for St Paul’s Epistles, any Syriac 
version older than the Peshito. Also, the high antiquity 
formerly claimed for the Peshito was founded mainly upon the 
quotations from it in St Ephraem; but these now prove to be 
untrustworthy, being due to assimilation in the printed text 
of this Father. 


ILLUSTRATIVE READINGS. 


We will now consider some readings (taken at hazard except 
as regards their generally interesting character), which will illus- 
trate the mutual relations of the documents for the text of this 
Epistle. We omit all reference to E and F, as being secondary 
(as mentioned above) to D and G respectively. 

It must be remembered that the documents, while furnishing 
merely the external credentials of a reading, have already been 
subjected to a classification on the basis of innumerable readings 
as to which no serious doubt exists ; the combination of external 
evidence as to antiquity with ‘internal’ evidence (¢.e. considera- 
tions of transcriptional probability, and of latent—as opposed to 
superficial—inferiority) has reached a result in which modern 
critical editors are as a rule agreed. Those MSS. or groups of 
MSS., which are most frequently ranged in support of the un- 
doubtedly right readings, are naturally deserving of special con- 
sideration where the reading is pvima facie less certain. + 

Such a group is 8B. These two fourth-century MSS., 
although in part written by one hand, are copied from quite 


* On the so-called Bashmuric version and its kindred, see Scrivener, 
Introd. (ed. 4), vol. ii. pp. 101-106, 140. 

+ The readings discussed below are treated independently of the notes on 
che several passages ; in a few cases the view taken differs from that expressed 
in the notes, 


Ix INTRODUCTION 


distinct originals. The text of & has clearly been affected by 
influences foreign to anything in the ancestry of B. The text 
of their common ancestor must have been of the very highest 
antiquity, and the test of many indisputable passages shows also 
that its antiquity must have been antiquity of type, not of date 
only. Apart from the small classes of ‘primitive corruptions’ 
and of ‘ Western non-interpolations,’ the combinations & B can 
only be set aside on the most cogent grounds; our Epistle 
contains few, if any, passages where such grounds can be 
shown. 


Typical Syrian Readings. 


In such passages as (1) vi. 20, where C2? D* K LP, Syrr., 
Chrys. add the words which follow tuév, we have a typical 
‘Syrian’ reading, and the shorter text is supported by & B in 
common with the vast preponderance of MSS. and versions. 
A similar example is (2) the inversion of @eds and Kvpsos, in 
vii. 17, in K L, the later Syriac, and later Greek Fathers. This 
was probably due to the desire to place eds first in order, over- 
looking the decisive fact that xéxAnxey calls for Oeds rather than 
6 Kvpuos (v. 15 and elsewhere). In (3) iii. 4 wapxuxol, (4) vill. 2 
eidévar for éyvwxévar, éyvwxe for éyvw, the case is the same,—s B, 
with an ample host of allies, ranged against a text which gained 
later currency but which lacks early attestation. 


Typical Western Readings. 


The case is somewhat different in the next instances to be 
mentioned, where the reading unsupported by & B has some 
early currency, mainly ‘Western’ in character. Such cases are 
(5) ili, 1 capxivos, §X ABC D* 17, 67**, Clem. Orig., where 
D°GLP, Clem. Orig. (in other places) read capxixots. Here 
the latter reading may be classed as ‘ Western’; but P, which 
supports it, joins the great uncials in (6) v. 3 in support of 
gapkixot against D* and G, which have capxivo. The latter 
reading is purely ‘Western’; P elsewhere (see below) frequently 
represents a non-Western text. 


Affinities of P. 


An example of this is (7) vili. 7 where we have® ABP 17, 
67**, and the Egyptian and Aethiopic Versions supporting ovv7- 
Geta against the ‘Western and Syrian’ ovvedyoe. The same 
holds good of (8) xii. 2 dre (see note there). Another passage 
where P joins x B (and 17) against a Western reading (adopted 


INTRODUCTION Ixi 


in the Syrian text) is (9) ix. 2 pov rys, where DGKL (and 
Latin MSS., afostolatus met) have rys éuns (A omits this 
verse), 

One more interesting example of this class of variants is the 
ternary variation in vii. 29, which it is worth while to set out in 
full— 


(10) vii. 29 éoriv ro Aourdv, 8 AB D*>P 17 Copt. Syr. Arm., 
Eus. (in one place) Ephr. Bas. Euthal. (D omits 
70.) 
76 Aourov éotiv, DS K L, Eus. (another place) Chrys. 
éotiv Aourov éativ, G 67**, def gm Vulg., Orig. Tert. 
Hieron. Aug. 


The attestation of the first reading clearly outweighs that of 
either of the other two. The second is clearly a ‘Syrian’ 
reading, the third as clearly ‘Western,’ D here preserving 
the non-Western reading, and P once more siding, against the 
Western reading, with & B. ‘This, however, is not always the 
case. In (11) xvi. 23 the omission of Xpicrov, 8 B 17, f, some 
MSS. of Vulg. Goth., Thdt., is probably right, though x* A’C D 
GKLMP, eg, some MSS. of Vulg., the versions generally, and 
most patristic quotations, follow the tendency to insert it (so far 
more natural than its omission, if found). But the insertion (in 
view of the combination x* AC LP, Euthal.) may be ‘ Alex 
andrian’ rather than ‘ Western.’ 


Possible Alexandrian Readings. 


So far our instances (with the possible exception of the last‘ 
have been cases of the excellence of the text supported by the 
combination & B. 

We will next consider some few possible examples of ‘ Alex- 
andrian’ editing. 


(12) iv. 6 (add after yéyparrat) ppovetv, 8 C D°L P Syrr. Copt. 
Arm. Goth., Greek Fathers, Euthal. 
om. XABD*G, Latin MSS. and Vulg., Orig. 
Latin Fathers. 


This is certainly an addition not ‘Western,’ but pre-Syrian. 
It corresponds with the character assigned by WH. to the 
Alexandrian touches. 


(13) ix. 9 knpwoes, B* D* G, Chrys. Thdt. 


gywoes, & A BC D? 47 3 K LP al. omn.,, Orig 
Chrys. Euthal. 


Ixii INTRODUCTION 


This is the first example we have taken of B differing from X&, 
and prima facie this might seem a clear case of the slight 
‘Western’ element present in B, in St Paul’s Epistles. But the 
Alexandrian witnesses are ranged on the side opposed to B, and 
we must remember that ¢ipwoes is in the LXX source of the 
quotation, and the assimilation of the text to its original would 
be more natural, as a correction, than the introduction of a 
variant. (The versions of course are neutral here.) 


(14) xv. 51 mavres pev, 8 AC? DG K LP, fg Vulg. Copt. Syr.?* 
Ephr. (?) Greek Fathers, Euthal. 
(om. pev) B C* D*, de Arm. Aeth. Syr.’" Greek MSS. 
known to Jerome. 


The perv, if (as probable) not genuine, illustrates once more 
the significance of the combination 8 ALP, Euthal.; it has 
the character of an Alexandrian touch. But it seems to have 
been read by both Ephraem in the East and Tertullian in the 
West. 


(15)x.9  Xpworov, DGKL, Vulg. Syr.PretPostt Copt., Marcion 
Iren. Chrys., etc. 
Kvpwov, § B C P 17, etc., Syr.P* ™= Copt.~4 Arm. Aeth., 
Dam., etc. 
@eov, A, Euthal. 


There is no question but that Xpuorov is of inferior and 
Western attestation. @edv looks like, and may possibly be, an 
Alexandrian correction (assimilation to Ps. Ixxvii. 18, LXX). 


(16) ix. 15 ovdets, 8* B D* 17, de Sah. Basm., and early Latin 
Fathers. 
ovbeis py, A. 
tis, G. 26. 
iva tus, NC D>°K LP, f Vulg., many Greek and 
Latin Fathers. 


(All MSS. except K read xevéoe here, the later cursives only 
reading xeviéon with most late Greek Fathers.) 

The reading tva tus, adopted by the Syrian text, is apparently 
pre-Syrian in origin; it lacks the full Alexandrian attestation, but 
on the other hand it bears every mark of an editorial touch, If 
pre-Syrian, it is Alexandrian rather than Western. 


(17) xi. 24 KAwpevov, NC? D?© GK L P, de g Syr., Euthal. Greek 
Fathers (@purop. D*). 
om. 8* A BC 17, 67**, Ath. Cyr. Fulg. (expressly). 
tradetur, f Vulg., Cypr. 


INTRODUCTION Ixiii 


Here P sides with the Western witnesses in what is clearly a 
‘Western’ interpolation (cf. Gal. i. 18, ii. 14 aérpos). 

The two last cases are on opposite sides of the border line 
which distinguishes readings of the Alexandrian type from other 
inferior, but pre-Syrian, readings. 


Western Element in B, 


We will next give an example or two of the ‘Western’ 
element in B (see above on ix. 9)— 


(18) ii. 1 = puorypiov, S* A C Copt. (Boh.), Amb. Aug. Ambrst., 
Cle: 
papripiov, 8° B D GL P, Latin and other verss., Cyr.- 
Alex. 


This is a doubtful case, as the readings hang somewhat evenly 
in the balance, and the attestation of papr. is perhaps not ex- 
clusively Western. But if WH. are right in preferring pvort., 
B may here betray Western admixture. The reading is one of 
the least certain in this Epistle. 


(19) xi. 19 (post ta) kai, B D 37 71, de Vulg. Sah., Ambrst. 
(om. cat) SAC D°°GK LP f g, Syr. Copt. Arm., 
Orig. Epiph. Euthal. Chrys., etc. 


Tertullian, Cyprian, and Jerome apparently are to be counted 
on the side of omission, as well as G. But the reading of B, 
which is of little intrinsic probability, is clearly ‘Western’ in its 
other attestation. 


(20) xv. 14 (after riots) indv, SA D?°GK LP, defg Vulg. 
verss. 
pov, B D* 17 67**, Sah. Basm. Goth. 


The bulk of the Western authorities are here against B; the 
latter probably preserves a very ancient, but not original, reading, 
possibly an early itacism (see below on xv. 49). 


(21) In xiv. 38 the reading of B dyvoeirw, supported by the 
correctors of 8 A D, and by K L, Syr. Arm. Aeth., Orig. 
against &* A* 1)* G*, Basm. and the Latin Versions, with 
Orig. in one place, is no doubt correct, as also in xv. 51 
where ov has been transferred to stand after the second 
mévres in SC G17. B here has the support of P as well 
as K L and Greek MSS. known to Jerome. 


In (22) x. 20, omission of ra €6vy, B has Western support only ; 
but the case is probably one of ‘ Western non-interpolation.’ 


Ixiv INTRODUCTION 


Singular Readings of B. 


There remain to be noticed a few singular or sub-singular 
readings of B which may not impossibly be right in some cases. 


(23) xiii. 4 (after GyAot) 7 ayary, RACDGKL, degm Syr., 
Orig. Cyr. Cypr. 
om. B 17, etc., f Vulg. Copt. Arm. By no tneans 
improbable. 


(24) vili. 8 weprroevoueba, B, Orig. (all the rest—opev). But for 
the quotation in Orig., which shows the reading to be 
very ancient, we might have set it down to the scribe 
of B. The same is true of 


(25) xiii. 5 7d py éavtas B, Clem.?***. The rest, including 
Clem.*°", have ra é€avrjs. The latter is probably right, 
but the reference in Clemfaed. shows that the variant is 
of high antiquity. 


(26) xv. 49 hopécopnev, B 46, Arm. Aeth., Thdt. and a few Fathers. 
The weight of evidence, and transcriptional probability, is 
here wholly on the side of & and all other MSS. against B. 


The above examples (13, 14, 18-26) show that where & and 
B are ranged against one another it is necessary to deal with 
each case on its evidential merits, but that B is rarely to be set 
aside without hesitation. 


Combined Witness of 8 B in disputed Readings. 


We will lastly take some passages where 8 and B are again 
at one, and probably right, though they are less clear than those 
mentioned at the outset. 


(27) Xlll. 3 Kavyjowpat, SAB 17, Boh., Ephr. Hieron. (and 
Greek MSS. known to him). 
kavOjnowpna, CK, defgm Vulg. verss., Orig. Ephr. 
Meth. Chrys., etc. 
kavOyocopna, D GL, Bas. Euthal. Cyr. Max. 


The latter reading is Western in its attestation, while xcavy. 
has the important indirect (but quite clear) support of Clem.- 
Rom. 55, a witness of exceptional antiquity. Transcriptional 
probability is, moreover, on the side of xavynowpa. 


(28) vil. 34 (before peneporar) kar, SA BD* P 17, 67, f Vulg. 
Syr.?°* Copt., Euthal and Early Fathers. 
om. D°GKL, degm, Chrys. Thdt. Dam. Amb, 
Ambrst. Hieron. 


INTRODUCTION Ixv 


There can be no doubt that this omission is ‘ Western’ and 
‘Syrian.’ 


(29) vil. 34 (after peep.) kat, SA BD* GK LP, deg Vulg., Meth. 
Eus., etc. 
om. D*, some copies of Vulg., Latin Fathers. 


The omission is here purely Western and of limited range. 


(30) vii. 34 (after yuv7)) 7) dyapos, 8 A B (C is lacking) P 17, Vulg. 
Copt., Euthal. Hieron. (and Gk. MSS. known to). 
om. DGKL, defgm fuld. Syr. Arm. Aeth., Meth. 


This omission again is clearly ‘ Western.’ 


(31) vil. 34 (after wapOévos) 7 adyapos, SADGKL, defg fuld. 
Syr. Arm. Aeth., Bas. Latin Fathers. 
om. BP, several mss. Vulg. Copt. Basm., Eus. 
Hieron. (with reasons). 


Reviewing as a whole the evidence (28-31) bearing upon this 
verse, the xa both before and after peuepusrat must be admitted 
as thoroughly attested. The omission of 77 d@yapos after 9 yuvy is 
inferior in attestation to its presence (additionally attested by 8 A) 
in both places. This latter reading, again, is clearly not original, 
but conflate; its support by s& A, Euthal. may point to an 
Alexandrian origin. Jerome, on the evidence before him, 
believed the reading 7 y. 7) ay. kai 7 map6. to be what St Paul 
actually wrote—afostolica veritas. Moreover, the apparent diffi- 
culty of this reading explains the early transference of 7 dyapos 
from after yuv7 to follow zapOévos. [The ‘unmarried woman’ is 
generic, including widows; the virgin (under control) is the 
special case whose treatment is in question.] Mepepuorar, both 
in number and in sense, fits ill with what follows it. The 
question of punctuation, as to which the MSS. give no help, 
must follow that of text. The crucial points, on which x B are 
agreed, are the cai in both places and the genuineness of 7 ay. 
after 7 yvv7. 

Our last example shall be the apy, xvi. 24. 


(32) xvi. 24 duyv, SACD KLP, de vg" verss., Chrys. Thdt. 
Dam. 


om. B M 17, fgr fuld. tol., Euthal. Ambrst. 
G has yeveOyjrw: yevebijrw (sic). 


The MSS. support dv conclusively at the end of Galatians, 
Rom. xvi. 27, and at the end of Jude. Elsewhere, in view of the 
strong liturgical instinct to add it where possible, the witness of 
even a few MSS. is enough to displace it. The other leading 

e 


Ixvi INTRODUCTION 


uncials, in varying combinations, add it at the end of most of the 
Epistles, and some MSS. in every case. It is noteworthy that 
(except in Galatians, Romans, Jude) B, wherever it is available, 
is the one constant witness against this interpolation. The one 
exception to this in the whole N.T. is at the close of St Luke’s 
Gospel, where the ayyv must be a very early addition. 


Our Epistle, to judge by the external evidence, was in wide 
circulation long before the ‘“ Apostolus” was circulated as a 
collection of letters ; certainly we have earlier and wider traces of 
its use than we have of that of the companion Epistle. It must 
accordingly have been copied many times before it was included 
in a comprehensive roll or codex. The wonder is that the text 
has suffered so little in transmission ; one possibility of primitive 
corruption (xii. 2) is, for an Epistle of this length, slight indeed. 


§ VIII. COMMENTARIES. 


These are very numerous, and a long list will be found in 
Meyer. See also the Bibliography in the 2nd ed. of Smith’s 
Dictionary of the Bible, i. pp. 656, 658; Hastings, DZ. i. p. 491, 
ili. p. 731; Lucy. Bibl. i. 907. In the selection given below, an 
asterisk indicates that the work is in some way important, a dagger, 
that valuable information respecting the commentator is to be 
found in Sanday and Headlam on Romans in this series, pp. 
XCVill.—C1x. 


Patristic and Scholastic: Greek. 


*+ Origen (d. 253). Some fragments have come down to 
us in Cramer’s Catena, vol. v. (Oxf. 1844), in the Philocalia 
(J. Arm. Robinson, Camb. 1893); additional fragments of great 
interest are given in the new and valuable recension by Claude 
Jenkins in the Journal of Theological Studies, January, April, 
July, and October 1908; and C. H. Turner comments on these, 
January 1909. 

*+ Chrysostom (d. 407). The Homilies on 1 and 2 Corin- 
thians are considered the best examples of his teaching.t They 
show admirable judgment, but sometimes two or more interpreta- 
tions are welded together in a rhetorical comment. He generally 
illuminates what he touches. 

*+ Theodoret (d. 457). Migne, P.G. Ixxxii. He follows 
Chrysostom closely, but is sometimes more definite and pointed. 

*+ Theophylact (d. after 1118). Migne, P.G. cxxv. He follows 


} They have been translated in the Oxford Library of the Fathers. 


INTRODUCTION Ixvii 


the Greek Fathers and is better than nearly all Latin com- 
mentators of that date. 

Oecumenius (Bp. of Tricca, end of tenth century). Migne, 
P.G. cxviii., cxix. The relation of his excerpts to those of Theo- 
phylact is greatly in need of further examination. 


Patristic and Scholastic: Latin. 


+ Ambrosiaster or Pseudo-Ambrosius. He is the unknown 
author of the earliest commentary on all the Pauline Epistles 
that has come down to us. He is now commonly identified 
either with Decimius Hilarianus Hilarius, governor of Africa in 
377, praetorian prefect in Italy in 396, or with the Ursinian 
Isaac, a convert from Judaism (C. H. Turner, Journal of Theo- 
logical Studies, April 1906). His importance lies in the Latin 
text used by him, which “ must be at least as old as 370... it 
is at least coeval with our oldest complete manuscripts of the 
Greek Bible, and thus presupposes a Greek text anterior to 
them.” Ambrosiaster’s text of the Pauline Epistles is ‘‘ equivalent 
to a complete fourth century pre-Vulgate Latin codex of these 
epistles ” (Souter, 4 Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 196). 

7 Pelagius. Migne, ?.Z. xxx. Probably written before 410. 

* Primasius. Migne, ?.Z. lxviii. Bishop of Adrumetum in 
the sixth century. 

Bede (d. 735). Mainly a catena from Augustine. 

* Atto Vercellensis. Migne, P.Z. cxxxiv. Bishop of Vercelli 
in Piedmont in the tenth century. Depends on his predecessors, 
but thinks for himself. 

* Herveius Burgidolensis (d. 1149). Migne, P.Z. clxxxi. A 
Benedictine of Bourg-Dieu or Bourg-Deols in Berry. One of 
the best of mediaeval commentators for strength and sobriety. 
He and Atto often agree, and neither seems to be much used by 
modern writers. 

Peter Lombard (d. 1160). 

7 Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274). 


Modern Latin. 


Faber Stapulensis, Paris, 1512. 

Cajetan, Venice, 1531. 

7 Erasmus, Desiderius (d. 1536). 

*+ Calvin, John. Quite the strongest of the Reformers as a 
commentator, clear-headed and scholarly, but too fond of finding 
arguments against Rome. His work on the Pauline Epistles 
ranges from 1539 to 1551. 

tT Beza, Theodore (d. 1605), Paris, 1594. 


t 


t 


Ixvili INTRODUCTION 


Cornelius a Lapide, Antwerp, 1614. Roman (Jesuit). 

* Estius, Douay, 1614. Roman (sober and valuable). 

+ Grotius, Amsterdam, 1644-1646. 

*+ Bengel, Tubingen, 1742; 3rd ed. London, 1862. Fore- 


most in Scriptural insight and pithy expression. 


*t+ Wetstein, Amsterdam, 1751, 1752. Rich in illustration. 


English. 
+ H. Hammond, London, 1653, ‘The father of English 


commentators.” ‘ Historical.’ 


+ John Locke, London, 1705-1707. ‘ Historical.’ 

Edward Burton, Oxford, 1831. 

T. W. Peile, Rivingtons, 1853. 

C. Hodge, New York, 1857. Calvinist. 

+ C. Wordsworth, Rivingtons, 4th ed. 1866. 

* F, W. Robertson, Smith & Elder, 5th ed. 1867. 

*+ H. Alford, Rivingtons, 6th ed. 1871. 

P. J. Gloag, Edinburgh, 1874. 

* A. P. Stanley, Murray, 4th ed. 1876. Picturesque and 


suggestive, but not so strong in scholarship. 


T. T. Shore in £/licot?s Commentary, n.d. 
J. J. Lias in the Cambridge Greek Testament, 1879. 
* T. S. Evans in the Speaker's Commentary, 1881. Rich in 


exact scholarship and original thought, but sometimes eccentric 
in results. 


D. Brown in Schaff’s Commentary, 1882. 

F. W. Farrar in the Pulpit Commentary, 1883. 

*+ J. A. Beet, Hodder, 2nd ed. 1884. Wesleyan. 

* T. C. Edwards, Hamilton Adams, 1885. Very helpful. 

* C. J. Ellicott, Longmans, 1887. Minute and strong in 


grammatical exegesis. Perhaps the best English Commentary on 
the Greek text (but misses Evans’ best points). 


W. Kay (posthumous), 1887. Scholarly, but-slight. 
Marcus Dods in the Zxfosttor’s Bible. 
* J. B. Lightfoot (posthumous), Notes on i.-vii. 1895. 


Important. 


* G. G. Findlay in the Exfositors Greek Testament, Hodder, 


1900. Thorough grasp of Pauline thought. 


* J. Massie in the Century Bible, n.d. 
W. M. Ramsay, Historical Commentary in the Zxfositor, 6th 


series. 


New Translations into English. 
The Twentieth Century New Testament, Part II., Marshall, 


1g00. 


~~ 


INTRODUCTION Ixix 


R. F. Weymouth, Zhe WV.T7: in Modern Speech, Clarke, 2nd 
ed. 1905. 

A. S. Way, The Letters of St Paul, Macmillan, 2nd ed. 1906. 

*W. G Rutherford (posthumous), Zhessalonians and Cor- 
inthians, Macmillan, 1908. 


German. 


Billroth, 1833 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1837. 

Rickert, Leipzig, 1836. 

Olshausen, 1840 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1855. 

J. E. Osiander, Stuttgart, 1849. 

*+ De Wette, Leipzig, 3rd ed. 1855. 

G. H. A. Ewald, Gottingen, 1857. 

Neander, Berlin, 1859. 

* Heinrici, Das Erste Sendschreiben, etc., 1880. 

S| er 5th ed. 1870; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1877. Re- 
edited by B. Weiss, and again by * Heinrici, 1896 and 1900; 
again by J. Weiss, 1910. 

Maier, Freiburg, 1857. Roman. 

Kling, in Lange’s Bzbe/werk, 1861; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 
1869. 

Schnedermann, in Strack and Zockler, 1887. 

H. Lang, in Schmidt & Holzendorff ; Eng. tr., London, 1883. 
Thin. 

* Schiniedel, Freiburg, i. B., 1892. Condensed, exact, and 
exacting. 

* B. Weiss, Leipzig, 2nd ed. 1902. Brief, but helpful. Eng. 
tr., New York and London, 1906; less useful than the original. 
Also his * Zexthkritth d. paul. Briefe (xiv. 3 of Texte und Unter- 
suchungen), 18096. 

* P. Bachmann, in Zahn’s Kommentar, Leipzig, 1910. 

Also Schafer, 1903; Bousset, 1906; Lietzmann, +1907; 
Schlatter, 1908. 


French. 


E. Reuss, Paris, 1874-80. 
*+ F. Godet, Paris, 1886 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1888. Strong 
in exegesis, but weak in criticism. 


General. 


The literature on the life and writings of St Paul is enormous, 
and is increasing rapidly. Some of the works which are helpful 
and are very accessible are mentioned here. 


Ixx INTRODUCTION 


Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St Paul. 

Farrar, Life and Work of St. Paul. 

Lewin, Life and Epistles of St Paul; Fasti Sacri. 

R. J. Knowling, Zhe Witness of the Epistles, 1892; The 
Testimony of St Paul to Christ, 1905. 

J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays. 

Hort, Judaistic Christianity; The Christian Ecclesia. 

H. St J. Thackeray, Zhe Relation of St Paul to Contemporary 
Jewish Thought, 1900. 

Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller, 1902; Pauline and other 
Studies, 1906. 

Ropes, Zhe Apostolic Age, 1906. 

Weinel, S¢ Paul, the Man and his Work, Eng. tr. 1906. 

Pfleiderer, Pau/inism, Eng. tr. 1877. 

Du Bose, Zhe Gospel according to St Paul, 1907. 

W. E. Chadwick, Zhe Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, 1907. 

A. T. Robertson, Zpochs in the Life of St Paul, 1909. 

Cohu, St Paul in the Light of Modern Research, 1911. 

Baur, Paulus (ed. 2), 1866 (still worth consulting in spite of 
views now obsolete). 

Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus, 1880; Einleitung in 
die Korintherbriefe, 1901. 

Rabiger, Kvistische Untersuchungen tiber 1 and 2 Kor., 1886. 

Weizsacker, Afost. Zettalter, 1886. 

Holtzmann, Linleitung in das N.T., 1892. 

Jilicher, Zinleitung in das N.T., 1894; Eng. tr. 1904. 

Krenkel, Beitrdge z. Aufhellung d. Geschichte und a. Briefe d. 
Afostels Paulus, 1895. 

Zahn, ELinleitung in das N.T., Eng. tr. 1909. 

Hastings, DBZ., articles ,‘ Baptism’; ‘ Lord’s Supper’; ‘ Paul 
the Apostle’; ‘Resurrection’; ‘Tongues, Gift of’; ‘Greek 
Patristic Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles’ (vol. v.). 

Ency. Bibl., articles, ‘ Baptism’ ; Eucharist’ ; ‘Spiritual Gifts.’ 

Ency. Brit. (11th ed., Dec. 1910), articles, ‘ Apologetics’ 
(p. 193), ‘Apostle,’ ‘Atonement’ (pp. 875f.), ‘Baptism’ (pp. 
368 f.), ‘Christianity’ (pp. 284 f.), ‘Church History’ (pp. 334 f.), 
‘Corinthians,’ ‘ Eschatology’ (pp. 762 f.), ‘ Eucharist.’ 

The apocryphal letters between St Paul and the Corinthians 
have been edited by Harnack in his Geschichte d. altchrist. 
Litteratur, 1897, and also in Lietzmann’s excellent Materials for 
the use of Theological Lecturers and Students, 1905. See also 
Moffatt, Zntr. to the Lit. of the N.T. (pp. 129 f.). 


THE, FIRST 
EPISTLE FO. THE,CORINTHIANS 


see 


I. 1-8. THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION. 


Paul, a divinely chosen Apostle, and Sosthenes our 
brother, give Christian greeting to the Corinthian Church, 
ztself also divinely called, 


1Paul, an Apostle called by divine summons equally with 
the Twelve, and Sosthenes whom ye know, *give greeting to 
the body of Corinthian Christians, who have been consecrated 
to God in Christ, called out of the mass of mankind into the 
inner society of the Church to which so many other Christian 
worshippers belong. °%May the free and unmerited favour of 
God, and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him, 
be yours! May God Himself, our Heavenly Father, and the 
Lord Jesus Messiah, grant them to you! 

The Salutation is in the usual three parts: the sender (z. 1), 
the addressees (v. 2), and the greeting (z. 3). 


1. kAntés. Elsewhere only Rom.i. 1. As all are called to 
be dyzot, so Paul is called to be an Apostle: see on v. 2, and note 
the same parallelism, Rom. i. 1,6. In O.T. the idea of xAjous 
is often connected with prophets.* 

Sia OeAjpatos Ocod. As in 2 Cor., Eph., Col., 2 Tim.; ex- 
panded, with emphasis on his divine call to the exclusion of any 
human source or channel, in Gal. 1. 1. Sua ipsius voluntate 
nunguam P. factus esset apostolus (Beng.). Per quod tangit 
etiam illos, quos neque Christus miserat, neque per voluntatem Dei 

* Cf. Isa. vi. 8, 9; Jer. i. 4, 5. See W. E. Chadwick, Zhe Pastoral 
Teaching of St Paul, p. 76. 

I 


2 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS fe 1,2 


praedicabant (Herveius Burgidolensis), viz., the self-constituted 
teachers, the false apostles. 

ZXwo8évys He was not necessarily the amanuensis, for Tertius 
(Rom. xvi. 22) does not appear in the Salutation. In Gal. i. 1, 
a number of unnamed persons are associated with the Apostle. 
Nor need this Sosthenes be the Corinthian Jew (Acts xviii. 17) 
who was the chief of the synagogue (superseding Crispus the 
convert?) and perhaps leader of the complaint before Gallio,* 
If the two are identical, S. himself had (1) subsequently become 
a Christian, (2) migrated from Corinth to Ephesus, 

5 adekgos.. A Christian: xvi. 12; 2 Gor, 1. 1; Col 2 5; 
Philem. 1; Rom. xvi. 23; Heb. xiii. 23. The article implies 
that he was well known to some Corinthians. Deissmann (47é/e 
Studies, pp. 37, 142) has shown that ddeAXgoi was used of 
members of religious bodies long before Christians adopted it 
in this sense. It is remarkable that Apollos is not named as 
joining in sending the letter (xvi. 12). 


ADE omit kAnrés._ Xpicrod "Inoot (B DE FG 17, Am.) is to be pre- 
ferred to ’Inood Xp. (WS AL P, Syrr. Copt. Arm, Aeth.): see note on Rom. 
i. I. Contrast vv. I, 2, 4 with 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, where Kupios is added. 


2. TH exkAnola Tod Oeod. The genitive is possessive: x. 32, 
x1, 16, 22, xv.'o 3. 2 Cor. 1,-1.3 Gal. 1.13; ete. (Gh, Deatvageae 
xxiii. 1; etc. As Chrysostom remarks, the expression is at once 
a protest against party-spirit ; ‘the Church of God,’ not of any 
one individual. 

TH ovon. See Acts xiii. 1. 

Hytacpévois év Xp. “I. The plural in apposition to the col- 
lective singular throws a passing emphasis upon the individual 
responsibility of those who had been consecrated in baptism 
(vi. 11) as members of Christ. The perfect participle indicates 
a fixed state. 

KAntots dytos. Called by God (Gal. i. 6; Rom. viii. 30, 
ix. 24; etc.) to the Christian society through the preaching of 
the Gospel (Rom. x. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 14). See note on Rom. 
i. 7 and separate note on dy; also Chadwick, Pastoral 
Teaching, pp. 96, 98. The active xaXeiv is never used of the 
human instrument, but only of God or Christ. Admonet Cor- 
inthios majestatis tpsorum (Beng.). 

aiv mac. This is generally connected simply with 77 
éxxAnaia, as if St Paul were addressing the Corinthian Church 
along with all other Christians. But this little suits the in- 


* Chrysostom identifies Sosthenes with Crispus, and assumes that he was 
beaten for having become a Christian. Both conjectures are very improbable. 
That he headed the deputation to Gallio is very probable, and that he is the 
Corinthian Jew is also very probable. 


I. 2, 3] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 3 


dividual character of this Epistle, which (much more than 
Romans, for example) deals with the special circumstances of 
one particular Church. It is therefore better, with Heinrici, 
to connect the words with xAnrois dylows (contrast 2 Cor. i. 1). 
Euthymius Zigabenus takes it so. St Paul is not making his 
Epistle ‘Catholic,’ nor is he “greeting the whole Church in 
Spirit,” but he is commending to the Corinthians the fact that 
their call is not for themselves alone, but into the unity of the 
Christian brotherhood, a thought specially necessary for them. 
See xiv. 36. Throughout the Epistle it is the Corinthians alone 
that are addressed, not all Christendom. 

Tots émxkadoupevors. This goes back to Joel ii. 32, and 
involves the thought of faith, the common bond of all. See 
Rom. x. 12, 13. Here, as there, St Paul significantly brings in 
the worship of Christ under the O.T. formula for worship ad- 
dressed to the Lorp God of Israel. To be a believer is to 
worship Christ. 

év wavrt témw. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 1b; but it is hardly possible to 
read into the present expression the limitation to Achaia. This 
consideration confirms the view taken above of the force of ody 
maou «.T.., in spite of the parallels given by Lightfoot of Clem. 
ad Cor. 65, and the Ep. of the Church of Smyrna on the death 
of Polycarp, cai rdoas tats kata wavta Térov THS ayins Kat KaGo- 
Aiks ekxAnolas waporkiars. Cf. 2 Cor. 11. 14; 1 Thess. i. 8. 

adtév kal Hpdv. Connected either with tézw or with 
Kvpiov. The latter (AV., RV.) would be by way of epanor- 
thosis ; ‘our Lord’—rather ‘theirs avd ours.’ In itself jor is 
general enough to need no such epanorthosis: but the thought 
of the claim (v. 13) of some, to possess Christ for themselves 
alone, might explain this addition. The connexion with tézw 
(Vulg. #2 omnt loco ipsorum et nostro) is somewhat pointless, in 
spite of the various attempts to supply a point by referring it 
either to Achaia and Corinth, or to Ephesus and Corinth, or to 
Corinth and the whole world, or to the Petrine and the Pauline 
Churches, etc. etc. He may mean that the home of his con- 
verts is his home; cf. Rom. xvi. 13. 


BD*EFG place rq otop év KopivOw after Ayidopévos ev Xp. Inood. 
NAD?LP, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. place it before. A omits 
Xporod. &* A* D?ELP, Arm. Aeth. insert re after a’r&v, probably for 
the sake of smoothness. Such insertions are frequent both in MSS. and 
versions. 


3. xdpis Spiv kat eipyvn. This is St Paul’s usual greeting, 
the Greek xaipew combined with the Hebrew Shalom, and both 
with a deepened meaning. In 1 and 2 Tim., and in 2 John 3, 
éXeos is added after xapis. St James has the laconic and 
secular xaipew (cf. Acts xv. 23). St Jude has édcos iy kal 


4 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 4-9 


elpjvn Kat dydrn. In 1 and 2 Pet. we have xdpis tyiv Kat 
eipyvn, as here. The fact that ‘grace and peace’ or ‘grace, 
mercy, and peace’ is found in St Paul, St Peter, and St John, 
is some evidence “that we have here the earliest Christian 
password or symbolum. Grace is the source, peace the con- 
summation” (Edwards). The favour of God leads naturally to 
peace of mind. Enmity to God has ceased, and reconciliation has 
followed. Quae gratia a non offenso? Quae pax a non rebellato? 
asks Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 5). See on Rom. i. 5 and 7. 
In Dan. iii. 31 [98] we have as a salutation, eipyvy ipiv mAnbuv- 
Gein. See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 221-226. In 2 Mace. 
i. 1 we have xaipev .. . elpyvnv dyabyv, and in the Apoc. of 
Baruch Ixxviii. 2, “mercy and peace.” Such greetings are not 
primarily Christian. 


I. 4-9. PREAMBLE OF THANKSGIVING AND HOPE. 


I thank God continually for your present spiritual con- 
dition. Christ will strengthen you to the end according to 
Divine assurance. 


4T never cease thanking God, because of the favours which 
He bestowed upon you through your union with Christ Jesus, 
5 whereby as immanent in Him ye received riches of every kind, 
in every form of inspired utterance and every form of spiritual 
illumination, for the giving and receiving of instruction. ® These 
gifts ye received in exact proportion to the completeness with 
which our testimony to the Messiah was brought home to your 
hearts and firmly established there; 7so that (as we may hope 
from this guarantee) there is not a single gift of grace in which 
you find yourselves to be behind other Churches, while you are 
loyally and patiently waiting for the hour when our Lord Jesus 
Christ shall be revealed. ®And this hour you need not dread, 
for our Lord Himself, who has done so much for you hitherto, 
will also unto the very end keep you secure against such accusa- 
tions as would be fatal in the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
®This is a sure and certain hope: for it was God, who cannot 
prove false, who Himself called you into fellowship with His Son 
and in His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord ; and God will assuredly 
do His part to make this calling effective. 

This Thanksgiving is a conciliatory prelude to the whole 
Epistle, not directed to a section only (v. 12), nor ironical (!), 


I. 4, 5] THANKSGIVING AND HOPE 5 


nor studiously indefinite (Hofm.), but a measured and earnest 
encomium of their general state of grace (Acts xviii. 10), with 
special stress on their v/e//ectual gifts, and preparing the way for 
candid dealing with their inconsistencies. 


4, edxapior@. Sosthenes seems to be at once forgotten ; this 
important letter is the Apostle’s own, and his alone: contrast 
evxapiotodmev, I Thess. i. 2; dorep ovv watip él viots edyapirret 
or ay tyiaivwou, Tov aitov tpdrov Or av Bryn SiddoKados Tors 
axpoaras wAouTotvtas Adyw codias, evyapiorel mavToTE Tepl aitav 
(Orig.). With this Thanksgiving compare that in 2 Mace. ix. 20 
(AV.). See also Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 168. 
St Paul’s evxapioro is uttered in full earnest: there is no irony, as 
some think. In the sense of thanksgiving, the verb belongs to 
Hellenistic rather than to class. Grk. (Lightfoot on 1 Thess. i. 2): 
aavrote as in 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3. 

TH xdpite T. ©. 7. S08eion. Special gifts of grace are viewed as 
incidental to, or presupposing, a state of grace, z.e., the state of 
one living under the influence of, and governed by, the redemp- 
tion and reconciliation of man effected by Jesus Christ ; more 
briefly, ‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (2 Cor. viii. 9; cf. 
id xdpw, Rom. vi. 14). The aorists (do6c/on . . . erAouticOnre 
. . . €BeBard6y) sum up their history as a Christian community 
from their baptism to the time of his writing. 

7T@ Beg wov(S1 AC DEF GLP, Latt. Syr. Copt. Arm.) ; S* B, Aeth. 
omit ov. A* and some other authorities omit rod Ocod after xdputt. 

5, ote év mavtit. Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 7, domep ev mavtt repiooevere 
miote kat Noyw Kal yvdoet. The two passages, though doubtless 
addressed to different situations, bring out strikingly by their 
common points the stronger side of Corinthian Christianity, 
Adyos and yvacus, both true gifts of the Spirit (xii. 8), although 
each has its abuse or caricature (i. 17-iv. 20 and viii. 1 f.).* 
Adyos is the gift of speech, not chiefly, nor specially, as manifested 
in the Tongues (which are quite distinct in xii. 8 f.), but closely 
related to the teachers work. It was the gift of Apollos 
(Acts xviii. 24). The Adyos codéas is the gift of the Spirit, while 
copia Adyou—cultivating expression at the expense of matter 
(v. 17)—is the gift of the mere rhetorician, courting the applause 
(vanum et inane codpas!) of the ordinary Greek audience. St 
Paul, according to his chief opponent at Corinth, was wanting 
in this gift (2 Cor. x. 10, 6 Adyos eLovfevnpevos): his oratorical 
power was founded in deep conviction (v. 18, ii. 4, iv. 20). 


* St Paul does not hesitate to treat yvGots as a divine gift (xii. 8, xiii. 2, 
xiv. 6), and this use is very rare in N.T., except in his Epistles and in 2 Pet. 
When St John wrote, the word had worse associations. This is the earliest 
use of itin N.T. In the Sapiential Books of O.T. it is very frequent. 


6 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS _ [I. 5-7 


St Paul “loses sight for a moment of the irregularities which 
had disfigured the Church at Corinth, while he remembers the 
spiritual blessings which they had enjoyed. After all deductions 
made for these irregularities, the Christian community at Corinth 
must have presented as a whole a marvellous contrast to their 
heathen fellow-citizens,—a contrast which might fairly be re- 
presented as one of light and darkness” (Lightfoot). This 
Epistle contains no indication of the disloyalty to the Apostle 
which we trace in 2 Cor., especially in x.—xiii. 

mdon yvwoe. See 2 Cor. xi. 6, where St Paul claims for 
himself eminence in the true yvéous, and also 1 Cor. viii. 1 f. 


6. xa0ds. It introduces, not a mere parallel or illustration, 
but rather an explanation of what precedes: ‘inasmuch as’; z. 7 ; 
John xiii. 34, xvii. 2. But 1 Thess. i. 5 (quoted by Lightfoot) 
is less strong. 

7) paptupioy tod Xp. ‘The witness borne [by our preaching] 
to Christ’; genttivus objecti. Cf. xv.15. Origen takes it of the 
witness borne by the Scriptures to Christ, and also of the witness 
borne éy Christ, who is the dpy/yaprus through His death. 

éBeBars6n. Either (1) was established duradly (BeBaioe, 
v. 8) in or among you (Meyer); or (2) was verified and estab- 
lished by its influence on your character (2 Cor. iii. 2); or 
(3) was brought home to your deepest conviction as true by the 
witness of the Spirit (ii. 4).* This last is the best sense. 


B* F G, Arm. have rod Q¢eo0 for rod Xpiorod. 


7. dote bpas py botepetobar. With the infin., dere points to 
a contemplated result ; with the indic., to the result as a fact 
(2 Cor. v. 16; Gal. ii. 13). What follows, then, is a statement 
of what was ¢o de looked for in the Corinthians as the effect of 
the grace (v. 4) of God given to them in Christ; and there was 
evidently much in their spiritual condition which corresponded 
to this (xi. 2; Acts xviii. 10). 

botepetoba. ‘ Feel yourselves inferior’; middle, as in xii. 24. 
The active or passive is more suitable for expressing the bare 
fact (2 Cor. xi. 5), or physical want (2 Cor. xi. 9; Phil. iv. 12); 
while the middle, more passive than the active and more active 
than the passive, is applicable to persons rather than things, 
and to feelings rather than to external facts. The prodigal 
began to rea/ize his state of want (torepetaGa, Luke xv. 14), while 
the young questioner appealed to an external standard (ré ér 
torep®; Matt. xix. 20). 

xapioparr. Cf. Rom. i. 11, where it is in context with 
ornpx9jva, as here with BeBaw6jva. Philo uses the word 


* Deissmann (Aid/e Studies, p. 104 f.) thinks that the meaning of ‘‘a legal 
guarantee,” which S«Salwors has in papyri, lies at the basis of the expression, 


tr. 7, 8] THANKSGIVING AND HOPE 7 


of divine gifts (De adleg. deg. ili, 24), and in N.T., excepting 
t Pet. iv. ro, it is peculiar to Paul. It is used by him (1) of 
God’s gift of salvation through Christ, Rom. v. 15, vi. 23; 
(2) of any special grace or mercy, vil. 7; 2 Cor. i. 11; and 
(3) of special equipments or miraculous gifts, as that of healing, 
xii. 9; cf. xii. 4; Rom. xii. 6. Here it is by no means to be 
restricted to (3), but includes (2), for the immediate context, 
especially v. 8, dwells on gifts flowing from a state of grace. 

daexdexopévous. As in Rom. vii. r9. For the sense ef. 
Col. iii. 3 f.; 1 Pet. i. 7; 1 John iii. 2, 3; and see Mapayr da, 
xvi. 22. In this reference, of waiting for the Advent, the word 
is always used of faithful Christians (Gal. v. 5; Phil. iii, 20; 
Heb. ix. 28).* Character Christiant veri vel falst revelationem 
Christi vel expectare vel horrere (Beng.). 

dtroxdduyiv. See Rom. villi. 19; 1 Pet. i. 13. Quite need- 
lessly, Michelsen suspects the verse of being a gloss. 


8. ds kat BeBawwoe. Origen asks, ris BeBacot; and answers, ° 
Xpiords “Incots. The os refers to rod Kupiov nm. “I. Xp. 3; cer- 
tainly not, as Beng. and others, to @eds in v. 4. This remote 
reference is not made probable by the words év rH nmépa tr. K. 
nu. “I, Xp. instead of simply év 77 7. avrod. We have Christ’s 
name ten times in the first ten verses, and the solemn repetition 
of the sacred name, instead of the simple pronoun, is quite in 
St Paul’s manner ; v. 3, 4; 2 Cor. 1.5; 2 Tim. i. 18. Cf. Gen. 
xix. 24, which is sometimes wrongly interpreted as implying a 
distinction of Persons. The xaé points to correspondence ‘on 
His part,’ answering to €BeBawGy, érexdexomevors, in vv. 6, 7. 

BeBadoer. Cf. 2 Cor. 1. 21, and, for the thought, Rom. 
xvi. 25; 1 Thess. iii. 13, v. 24. If they fail, it will not be His 
fault. 

€ws tédous. The sense is intenser than in 2 Cor. i. 13; 
cf. eis exetvnv tv nepav (2 Tim. 1. 12). Mortis dies est uni- 
cuique dies adventus Domini (Herv.).+ 

dveykdyjtous. ‘Unimpeachable,’ for none will have the right 
to impeach (Rom. viii. 33; Col. i. 22, 28). The word implies, 
not actual freedom from sins, but yet a state of spiritual renewal 
(ii. 12f.; Phil. i. 10; 2 Cor. v. 17; Rom. viii. 1). This pro- 
leptic construction of the accusative is found in 1 Thess. iii. 13, 
v. 23; Phil. iii. 21. Connect ev 77 yépa with aveyxArjrovs. 

* ** As though that were the highest gift of all; as if that attitude of ex- 
pectation were the highest posture that can be attained here by the Christian ” 
(F. W. Robertson). 

t The doctrine of the approach of the end is constantly in the Apostle’s 
thoughts : iii. 13, iv. 5, vi. 2, 3, vii. 29, xi. 26, xv. 51, xvi. 22. We have fws 
réXous in 2 Cor. i, 13 with the same meaning as here, and in 1 Thess. ii. 16 


the more common els ré\os with a different meaning. See Abbott, Johannine 
Grammar, 2322. 


8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [1.9 


év rn nuépa (SN ABCLP, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) rather than év 79 
mapovola (D EF G, Ambrst.). B omits Xpiorod. 


9. The confident hope expressed in v. 8 rests upon the faith- 
fulness of God (x. 13 ; 1 Thess. v. 24; Rom. viii. 30; Phil. i. 6) 
who had been the agent, as well as the source, of their call. 
With 8v of cf. Heb. ii. 10, and also é€ atrod cai 8 atrod kai eis 
avrov Ta mavra, Rom. xi. 36. Aud with genitive can be applied 
either to Christ or to the Father,* but e€ ob would not be applied 
by St Paul to Christ. ‘‘ Wherever God the Father and Christ 
are mentioned together, origination is ascribed to the Father 
and mediation to Christ” (Lightfoot, who refers especially to 
viii. 6). By St Paul, as by St John (vi. 44), the calling is specific- 
ally ascribed to the Father. 

eis kotwwviay. This fellowship (Rom. viii. 17; Phil. iv. 10 f.) 
exists now and extends to eternity: it is affected by and in the 
Spirit (Rom. viii. 9 f.); hence xowwvia (rod) wvevparos (2 Cor. 
xiii. 13; Phil. ii. 1). Vocatd estis in societatem non modo apostolorum 
vel angelorum, sed etiam Filit ejus J. C. Domini nostri (Herv.). 
The genitive rod viot is objective, and “the xowwvia rod viod 
airod is co-extensive with the BacvAcla rod Ocod” (Lightfoot). 


D* F G (not d fg) have b¢’ of instead of 6’ of, 


After this preamble, in which the true keynote of St Paul’s 
feeling towards his Corinthian readers is once for all struck, 
he goes on at once to the main matters of censure, arising, not 
from their letter to him (vii. 1), but from what he has heard 
from other sources. In the preamble we have to notice the 
solemn impression which is made by the frequent repetition 
of ‘ Christ Jesus’ or ‘our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Only once (z. 5) 
have we airds instead of the Name. And in the beginning of 
the next section the Apostle repeats the full title once more, as 
if he could not repeat it too often (Bachmann). 


I. 10-VI. 20. URGENT MATTERS FOR CENSURE. 
I. 10-IV. 21. THE DISSENSIONS (xicpara). 
10-17. Do be united. I have been informed that there 


are contentions among you productive of party spirit. It 
was against this very thing that I so rarely baptized. 


1° But I entreat you, Brothers, by the dear name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, into fellowship with whom you were called by 
* See Basil, De Spiritu, v. 10. 


I. 10] THE DISSENSIONS 9 


God Himself, do be unanimous in professing your beliefs, and 
do not be split up into parties. Let complete unity be restored 
both in your ways of thinking and in your ultimate convictions, 
so that all have one creed. I do not say this without good 
reason: for it is quite clear to me, from what I was told by 
members of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions and 
wranglings among you. 1*What I mean is this; that there is 
hardly one among you who has not got some party-cry of his 
own; such as, “I for my part stand by Paul,” ‘And I for my 
part stand by Kephas,” ‘‘ And I stand by Apollos,” ‘And I stand 
by Christ.” 18 Do you really think that Christ has been given to 
any party as its separate share? Was it Paul who was crucified 
for you? Or was it to allegiance to Paul that you pledged 
yourselves when you were baptized? 14Seeing that you thus 
misuse my name, I thank God that not one of you was baptized 
by me, excepting Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and my 
personal friend Gaius. So that God has prevented any one 
from saying that it was to allegiance to me that you were pledged 
in baptism. 1¢Yes, I did baptize the household of Stephanas, 
my first converts in Achaia. Besides these, to the best of my 
knowledge, I baptized no one. 17For Christ did not make me 
His Apostle to baptize, but to proclaim His Glad-tidings :—and 
I did this with no studied rhetoric, so that the Cross of Christ 
might prevail by its own inherent power. 

In these verses (10-17) we have the facts of the case. The 
Apostle begins with an exhortation to avoid dissensions (z. 10), 
then proceeds to describe (11, 12) and to show the impropriety 
of (13-17) their actual dissensions. Quorum prius salutem narra- 
verat, postmodum vulnera patefectt (Herv.). 


10. wapaxah@ 8é. ‘But (in contrast to what I wish to think, 
and do think, of you) I earnestly beg.’ Iapaxadciy, like 
mapaitéopat (Acts xxv. 11), suggests an aim at changing the mind, 
whether from sorrow to joy (consolation), or severity to mercy 
(entreaty), or wrong desire to right (admonition or exhortation). 
The last is the sense here. The word is used more than a 
hundred times in N.T. 

éSedpoi. Used in affectionate earnestness, especially when 
something painful has to be said (vii. 29, x. 1, xiv. 20, etc.). It 
probably implies personal acquaintance with many of those who 
are thus addressed: hence its absence from Ephesians and 
Colossians. 


10 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 10, 11 


81a tod dvépatos. We should have expected the accusative, 
‘for the sake of the Name.’ The genitive makes the Name the 
instrument of the appeal (Rom. xii. 1, xv. 30; 2 Cor. x. 1): 
cf. év évouart, 2 Thes. iii. 6. It is not an adjuration, but is 
similar to 8a 7. xvpiov Inood (1 Thess. iv. 2). This appeal to the 
one Name is an indirect condemnation of the various party- 
names. 

iva. This defines the purport rather than the purpose of 
the command or request, as in Matt. iv. 3, eimé va of AG obrou 
aprou yevwvrat. 

76 adtd A€ynte. The expression is taken from Greek political 
life, meaning ‘be at peace’ or (as here) ‘ make up differences.’ 
So Arist. Po/. III. iii. 3, Bowwrot d€ kai Meyapiys 7d abrd A€yovTes 
yovxacov, and other examples given by Lightfoot ad Joc. Cf. 76 
aitd dpovety (Rom. xv. 15; Phil. ii. 2), and see Deissmann, Brdb/e 
Studies, p. 256. ‘The wdvres comes last with emphasis. St Paul 
is urging, not unison, but harmony. For his knowledge of Greek 
writers see xv. 34; Rom. ii. 14; Acts xvii. 28. 

pi) y- «= That there may not be,’ as there actually are: he 
does not say yévyrat. 

oxiopata. Not ‘schisms,’ but ‘dissensions’ (John vii. 43, 
ix. 16), ‘clefts,’ ‘splits’; the opposite of 76 airo A€ynre wavtes. 

katnptiopevor. The word is suggestive of fitting together 
what is broken or rent (Matt. iv. 21). It is used in surgery for 
setting a joint (Galen), and in Greek politics for composing 
factions (Hdt. v. 28). See reff. in Lightfoot on 1 Thess. iii. 10. 
Cf. 2 Cor. xiii..11; Gal. vi. 1; Heb. xiii. 21: apte et congruenter 
inter se compingere (Calv.). 

vot... yvapn. Novs is ‘temper’ or ‘frame of mind,’ 
which is changed in perdvoia and is &indly in etvora, while youn 
is ‘judgment’ on this or that point. He is urging them to give 
up, not erroneous beliefs, but party-spirit. 


11. é5nddOn. Not ‘was reported,’ but ‘was made (only too) 
evident.’ The verb implies that he was unable to doubt the 
unwelcome statement. In papyri it is used of official evidence. 
For adeAdoi see on v. I0. 

ém5 tav XAofs. This probably means ‘by slaves belonging 
to Chloe’s household.’ She may have been an Ephesian lady 
with some Christian slaves who had visited Corinth. Had they 
belonged to Corinth, to mention them as St Paul’s informants 
might have made mischief (Heinrici). The name Chloe was 
an epithet of Demeter, and probably (like Phoebe, Hermes, 
Nereus, Rom. xvi. 1, 14, 15) she was of the freedman class 
(see Lightfoot, ad /oc.). She is mentioned as a person known 
to the Corinthians. There is no reason to suppose that she 


e, 11,12] THE DISSENSIONS 11 


was herself a Christian, or that the persons named in xvi. 17 
were members of her household. Evidence is wanting. 

épides. More unseemly than oxiopara, although not neces- 
sarily so serious. Nevertheless, not cxiopara, unless crystallized 
into aipéces, but épides, are named as ‘works of the flesh’ 
in Gal. v. 19, 20, or in the catalogues of vices, Rom. i. 29-31 ; 
2 Cor. xii. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 4. The divisions became noisy. 


12. h€yw 8€ todto. ‘Now I mean this’: but perhaps the 
force of the é€ is best given by having no conjunction in 
English; ‘I mean this.’ The rotro refers to what follows, as 
in vil. 29, xv. 50, whereas in vil. 35 it refers to what precedes, 
like avry in ix. 3. 

éxaotos. This must not be pressed, any more than in 
xiv. 26, to mean that there were no exceptions. No doubt 
there were Corinthians who joined none of the four parties. 
It is to be remembered that all these party watchwords are on 
one level, and all are in the same category of blame. Cham- 
pionship for any one leader against another leader was wrong. 
St Paul has no partiality for those who claim himself, nor any 
respect for those who claim Christ, as their special leader. 
Indeed, he seems to condemn these two classes with special 
severity. The former exalt Paul too highly, the latter bring 
Christ too low: but all four are alike wrong. That, if such 
a spirit showed itself in Corinth at all, Paul, the planter, builder, 
and father of the community, would have a following, would 
be inevitable. And Apollos had watered (Acts xvili. 27, 28), 
and had tutored Paul’s children in Christ. His _brilliancy and 
Alexandrian modes of thought and expression readily lent 
themselves to any tendency to form a party, who would exalt 
these gifts at the expense of Paul’s studied plainness. “The 
difference between Apollos and St Paul seems to be not so 
much a difference of views as in the mode of stating those 
views: the eloquence of St Paul was rough and burning; that 
of Apollos was more refined and polished” (F. W. Robertson).* 

Knoa. Excepting Gal. il. 7, 8, St Paul always speaks of 
Kyndas, never of Ilerpos. He was unquestionably friendly to 
St Paul (Gal. ii. 7-9; and wv. 11-14 reveal no difference of 
doctrine between them). But amo..g the Jewish or ‘devout 
Greek’ converts at Corinth there might well be some who 
would willingly defer to any who professed, with however little 
authority (Acts xv. 24), to speak in the name of the leader of 
the Twelve. ‘His conduct at Antioch had given them all 
the handle that they needed to pit Peter against Paul” (A. T. 

* It isa skilful stroke that the offender’s own words are quoted, and each 


appears as bearing witness against himself. What each glories in becomes 
his own condemnation ; ék Tov orduarés cov. 


12 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 12 


Robertson, Efochs in the Life of Paul, p. 187). There is no 
evidence, not even in ix. 5, that Peter had ever visited Corinth. 
It is remarkable that, even among Jewish Christians, the Greek 
‘Peter’ seems to have driven the original ‘ Kephas’ (John i. 43) 
out of use. 

Xptorod. The ‘Christ’ party may be explained in the light 
of 2 Cor. x. 7, 10, 11, and possibly xi. 4, 23 (compare xi. 4 with 
Gal. i. 6), where there seems to be a reference to a prominent 
opponent of St Paul, whose activity belongs to the situation 
which is distinctive of 2 Cor. From these passages we gather 
that, when 2 Cor. was written, there was a section at Corinth, 
following a leader who was, at least for a time, in actual 
rebellion against St Paul. This section claimed, in contrast 
to him, to belong to Christ, which was virtually a claim that 
Christ belonged to them and not to him; and this claim seems 
to have been connected with a criterion of genuine Apostleship, 
namely, to have known Christ in the flesh, ze. during His life 
on earth. Doubtless the situation in 2 Cor. goes beyond that 
which is presupposed in this Epistle. But éya 6 Xpuorod here 
must not be divorced from the clearer indications there. Those 
who used the watchword ‘of Christ’ were probably more 
advanced Judaizers than those who used the name of Kephas, 
to whom they stood related, as did the anti-Pauline Palestinian 
party (Acts xxi. 20, 21) to Kephas himself. The ‘parties’ at 
Corinth, therefore, are the local results of streams of influence 
which show themselves at work elsewhere in the N.T. We 
may distinguish them respectively as St Paul and his Gospel, 
Hellenistic intellectualism (Apollos), conciliatory conservatism, 
or ‘the Gospel of the circumcision’ (Kephas), and ‘zealots for 
the Law,’ hostile to the Apostleship of St Paul. These last 
were the exclusive party.* See Deissmann, Light from the 
Anc. East, p. 382. 

We need not, therefore, consider seriously such considera- 
tions as that éyd 8& Xpuorod was the cry of a// three parties 
(Rabiger, misinterpreting peneprorar) ; or that St Paul approves 
this cry (Chrysostom, appealing to iii. 22, 23); or that it is 
St Paul’s own reply to the others; or that it represents a 
‘James’ party (in which case, why is James not mentioned ?) ; 
or that it marks those who carried protest against party so far 
as to form a party on that basis. In ili. 23 St Paul says tpets 
d¢ Xpiorod most truly and from his heart; that is true of a//: 


* The conjecture that the original reading was éy® 6¢ Kplovov is not very 
intelligent. Could Crispus have been made the rival of Paul, Apollos, and 
Peter? Could Clement of Rome have failed to mention the Crispus party, 
if there had been one? He mentions the other three. And see vv. 13 
and 14. 


I. 12, 13] THE DISSENSIONS 13 


what he censures here is its exclusive appropriation by some. 
To say, with special emphasis, ‘Z am of Christ,’ is virtually 
to say that Christ is mine and not yours. 


In Acts xviii. 24 and xix. I, 8, Copt. have ‘ Apelles,’? while D in 
xviii. 24 has ‘ Apollonius.’ The reading ‘ Apelles’ seems to be Egyptian, 
and goes back to Origen, who asks whether Apollos can be the same as 
the Apelles of Rom. xvi. 10. 

For a history of the controversies about the four parties, see Bachmann, 


pp. 58-63. 


13. pepéprorat. The clauses are all interrogative, and are 
meant for the refutation of all. ‘Does Christ belong to a 
section? Is Paul your saviour? Was it in his name that you 
were admitted into the Church?’ The probable meaning of 
pepeptatat is ‘has been apportioned,’ ze. given to some one 
as his separate share (vii. 17; Rom. xii. 3; Heb. vii. 2). This 
suggestion has been brilliantly supported by Evans. ‘To say, 
‘Is Christ divided?’ implying a xegative answer, gives very 
little point. Lightfoot suggests that an affirmative answer is 
implied ; ‘Christ has been and is divided only too truly.’ But 
this impairs the spring and homogeneity of the three questions, 
giving the first an affirmative, and the other two a negative 
answer. It amounts to making the first clause a plain state- 
ment; ‘In that case the Body of Christ has been divided.’ 
Dividitur corpus, cum membra dissentiunt (Primasius). Sz mem- 
bra divisa sunt, et totum corpus (Atto Vercellensis). This mean- 
ing is hardly so good as the other. 

pi) Maddos éoraupaiOy «.t.A. To say éy® TavAov would imply 
this. To be a slave is dAAov eivat, another person’s property 
(Arist. Pol. I.). A Christian belongs to Christ (iii. 23), and he 
therefore may call himself dotAos “Inood Xpicrod, as St Paul 
often does (Rom. i. 1, etc.): but he may not be the dodAos of 
any human leader (vii. 23; cf. ili. 21; 2 Cor. xi. 20). St Paul 
shows his characteristic tact in taking himself, rather than 
Apollos or Kephas, to illustrate the Corinthian error. Cf. 
ix. 8, 9, xil. 29, 30. 

eis TO 6vopa. He takes the strongest of the three expressions : 
the eis (Matt. xxviii. 19; Acts viii. 16, xix. 5) is stronger than 
érit (Acts ii. 38, v2.) or ev (Acts x. 48). ‘Jnto the name’ 
implies entrance into fellowship and allegiance, such as exists 
between the Redeemer and the redeemed. Cf. the figure in 
x. 2, and see note there. St Paul deeply resents modes of 
expression which seem to make him the rival of Christ. Von 
vult a sponsa amari pro sponso (Herv.). At the Crucifixion we 
were bought by Christ; in baptism we accepted Him as Lord 
and Master: crux et baptismus nos Christo asserit (Beng.). 
“The guilt of these partizans did not lie in holding views 


14 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 13-15 


differing from each other: it was not so much in saying ‘this 
is the truth,’ as it was in saying ‘this is of the truth.’ The 
guilt of schism is when each party, instead of expressing fully 
his own truth, attacks others, and denies that others are in 
the Truth at all” (F. W. Robertson). See Deissmann, Azd/e 
Studies, pp. 146, 196; Light from the Anc. East, p. 123. 

It is difficult to decide between trép tbuav (RN ACD? EF GLP, fro 
vobis Vulg.) and zepl tuav (BD*). The former would be more likely to 
be substituted for the latter, as most usual, than wsce versa. But mepl is 
quite in place, in view of its sacrificial associations. See note on Rom. 
vill. 3. 

14. edxapioro. A quasi-ironical turn; ‘What difficulties I 
have unconsciously escaped.’ 

Kpionov. One of the first converts (Acts xviii. 8).* Ruler 
of the synagogue. 

Tatov. Probably the host of St Paul ‘and of the whole 
Church’ at Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23), but probably not the 
hospitable Gaius of 3 John 5,6. This common Roman frae- 
nomen belongs probably to five distinct persons in the N.T. 
The Greek preserves the correct Latin form, which is sometimes 
written Caius, because the same character originally stood in 
Latin for both G and C. Crispus, ‘curly,’ is a cognomen. 

After evyapicrd, 8? AC DEFGLP, Vulg. add rg Oe, while A 17, 
Syrr. Copt. Arm. add r@ Geg mwov—a very natural gloss. N* B 67, 
Chrys. omit. 

15. iva py tis etry. The iva points to the tendency of 
such an action on the Apostle’s part among those who had 
proved themselves capable of such low views: compare iva 
in Rom. xi. 11; John ix. 2. Their making such a statement 
was ‘“‘a result viewed as possible by St Paul” (Evans, who calls 
this use of iva “subjectively ecbatic”). Thus the sense comes 
very near to that of wore with the infinitive (v. 7). In N.T., 
iva never introduces a result as an objective fact, but its strictly 
final or telic force shows signs of giving way (v. 10),—a first 
step towards its vague use in mod. Grk. as a mere sign of 
the infinitive. Those who strive to preserve its strictly telic 
sense in passages like this (as Winer, Meyer, and others) have 
recourse to the so-called Hebraic teleological instinct of refer- 
ring everything, however mechanically, to over-ruling Providence. 
In vii. 29, if ‘the time is cut short,’ this was done with the 

* “Most of the names of Corinthian Christians indicate either a Roman 
or a servile origin (e.g. Gaius, Crispus, Fortunatus, Achaicus, xvi. 17; 
Tertius, Rom. xvi. 22; Quartus, Rom. xvi. 23; Justus, Acts xviii. 7)” (Hcy. 
Bibl. 898). It was because of the importance of such converts that the 
Apostle baptized Crispus and Gaius himself. We do not know whether Gaius 


was Jew or Gentile ; but the opposition of the Jews in Corinth to St Paul 
was so bitter that probably most of his first converts were heathen. 


I. 15-17} THE DISSENSIONS 15 


providential intention ‘that those who have wives should be 
as those who have none’: and in John ix. 2 the sense would 
be that ‘if this man sinned or his parents,’ the reason was that 
Providence purposed that he should be born blind. While 
refusing to follow such artificial paradoxes of exegesis, we 
may fully admit that Providentia Det regnat saepe in rebus 
guarum ratio postea cognoscitur. 


éBarric@nre (NABC*, Vulg. Copt. Arm.) rather than éBdmrica 
(CDEFGLP). RV. corrects AV. 


16. éBdmroa S€ kai. A correction which came into his 
mind as he dictated :—on reflexion, he can remember no other 
case. Possibly his amanuensis reminded him of Stephanas. 

Erepava. The name is a syncopated form, like Apollos, 
Demas, Lucas, Hermas, etc. It would seem that Stephanas 
was an earlier convert even than Crispus (xvi. 15). ‘Achaia’ 
technically included Athens, and Stephanas may himself have 
been converted there with the erepo. of Acts xvii. 34; but his 
household clearly belongs to Corinth, and they, not the head 
only, are the ‘first-fruits of Achaia,’ which may therefore be 
used in a narrower sense. 

hourdv. The neut. sing. acc. (of respect) used adverbially ; 
guod superest (Vulg. caeterum): 16 Xovrdv is slightly stronger. 
See Lightfoot on Phil. iii, 1 and on 1 Thess. iv. 1. Cf. iv. 2; 
2 Cor. xiii. 11. St Paul forestalls possible objection. 


17. od yap dméorerhév pe. This verse marks the transition to 
the discussion of principle which lies at the root of these oxic- 
pata, viz. the false idea of codia entertained by the Corinthians. 
The Apostle did not as a rule baptize by his own hand, but by 
imyperat. Perhaps other Apostles did the same (Acts x. 48). 
See John iv. 1, 2 for our Lord’s practice. Baptizing required no 
special, personal gifts, as preaching did. Baptism is not dis- 
paraged by this; but baptism presupposes that the great charge, 
to preach the Gospel,* has been fulfilled; Matt. xxviii. 1g; 
Luke xxiv. 47; [Mark] xvi. 15: and, with special reference to St 
Pail, ix. 16, 17; Acts 1x. 15, 20, XXil. 1g,2n eave go. “Acres- 
retXev = ‘sent as His dzéarodos.’ 

ou év copia Adyou. See note on v. 5. Preaching was St 
Paul’s great work, but his aim was not that of the professional 
rhetorician. Here he rejects the standard by which an age of 
rhetoric judged a speaker. The Corinthians were judging by 


* The translation of evayyeNifer@a varies even in RV. ; here, ‘ preach 
the gospel’; Acts xiii. 32, xiv. 15, ‘bring good tidings’; Acts xv. 35, Gal. 
i. 16, 23, ‘preach’; 1 Pet. i. 25, ‘ preach good tidings.’ 

The old explanation, that missionary preaching requires a special giit, 
whereas baptizing can be performed by any one, is probably right. 


16 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I 18-24 


externals. The fault would conspicuously apply, no doubt, to 
those who ‘ran after’ Apollos. But the indictment is not 
limited to that party. All alike were externalists, lacking a 
sense for depth in simplicity, and thus easily falling a prey to 
superficialities both in the matter and in the manner of teaching. 
DPévangile n'est pas un sagesse, est une salut (Godet). 

iva ph Kevw0H. To clothe the Gospel in codia Adyou was to 
impair its substance: xevody, cf. ix. 15 ; Rom. iv. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 
3, and «is xevov, Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 16. In this he glances at the 
Apollos party. 


I. 18-IIl. 4. THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE. 
(i) I. 18-II. 5. The False Wisdom. 


18-31. The message of the Cross is foolishness to the 
wonder-seeking Jew and to the wisdom-seeking Greek: but 
to us, who have tried it, tt ts God's power and God's wisdom. 
Consider your own case, how God has chosen the simple and 
weak in preference to the wise and strong, that all glorying 
might be in [Him alone. 


18 To those who are on the broad way that leadeth to destruc- 
tion, the message of the Cross of course is foolishness; but to 
those who are in the way of salvation, as we feel that we are, it 
manifests the power of God. } For it stands written in Scripture, 
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of 
the discerning I will set at nought. 2° What, in God’s sight, is 
the Greek philosopher? What, in God’s sight, is the Jewish 
Rabbi? What, be he Jew or Gentile, is the skilful disputer of 
this evilage? Did not God make foolish and futile the profane 
wisdom of the non-Christian world? 2! For when, in the provi- 
dence of God, the world, in spite of all its boasted intellect and 
philosophy, failed to attain to a real knowledge of God, it was 
God’s good pleasure, by means of the proclaimed Glad-tidings, 
which the world regarded as foolishness, to save those who have 
faith in Him. %The truth of this is evident. Jews have no 
real knowledge of the God whom they worship, for they are 
always asking for miracles ; nor Greeks either, for they ask for a 
philosophy of religion: but we proclaim a Messiah who has 
been crucified, to Jews a revolting idea, and to Greeks an absurd 
one. * But to those who really accept God’s call, both Jews 


I. 18] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 7 


and Greeks, this crucified Messiah is the supreme manifestation 
of God’s power and God’s wisdom. *For what the Greek 
regards as the unwisdom of God is wiser than mankind, and 
what the Jew regards as the impotency of God is stronger than 
mankind. 

#6 For consider, Brothers, the circumstances of your own call. 
Very few of you were wise, as men count wisdom, very few were 
of great influence, very few were of high birth. 27 Quite the 
contrary. It was the unwisdom of the world which God specially 
selected, in order to put the wise people to shame by succeeding 
where they had failed ; and it was the uninfluential agencies of 
the world which God specially selected, in order to put its 
strength to shame, by triumphing where that strength had been 
vanquished ; *8and it was the low-born and despised agencies 
which God specially selected, yes, actual nonentities, in order to 
bring to nought things that are real enough. 29 He thus secured 
that no human being should have anything to boast of before 
God. * But as regards you, on the other hand, it is by His will 
and bounty that ye have your being by adoption in Christ Jesus, 
who became for us wisdom manifested from God,—wisdom which 
stands for both righteousness and sanctification, yes, and redemp- 
tion as well. *%!God did all this, in order that each might take 
as his guiding principle what stands written in Scripture, He that 
glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 

The Gospel in its essence makes no appeal to appreciation 
based on mere externalism. Divine Wisdom is not to be gauged 
by human cleverness (18-25). The history and composition of 
the Corinthian Church is a refutation of human pretensions by 
Divine Power (26-29), which, in the Person of Christ, satisfies 
the deeper needs and capacities of man (30, 31). 


18. 6 Adyos. In contrast, not to Adyos codias (v. 5, ii. 6), 
but to copia Adyov (v. 17); the preaching of a crucified 
Saviour. 

The AV. spoils the contrast by rendering ‘the wisdom of 
words’ and ‘the preaching of the Cross.’ The use of co¢éa in 
these two chapters should be compared with the dytov 
mvedpa in the Book of Wisdom (i. 5, ix. 17), mvedua codias 
(vii. 7), etc. St Paul had possibly read the book. We have in 
Wisdom the opposition between the cpa and the zvedya or 
Yuxy or codia (i. 4, ii. 3, ix. 15). 

Tod otavpov. “This expression shows clearly the stress 

2 


18 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 18, 19 


which St Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great 
moral spectacle, and so the crowning point of a life of self- 
renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation” 
(Lightfoot). Cf. Ign. Zp. 18. 

Tots pev Gmokupevors. ‘ For them who are perishing’ (dativus 
commodi), not ‘In the opinion of those who are perishing’ 
(Chrys.). Compare carefully 2 Cor. ii. 16, iv. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 10. 
The verb (John iii. 16) is St Paul’s standing expression for the 
destiny of the wicked (xv. 18). The force of the present tense 
is ‘axiomatic,’ of that which is certain, whether past, present, or 
future: amd Tov téAovs Tas Katynyopias tLHels (Theodoret). The 
idea of predestination to destruction is quite remote from this 
context: St Paul simply assigns those who reject and those who 
receive ‘the Word of the Cross’ to the two classes corresponding 
to the issues of faith and unbelief; and he does not define 
‘perishing.’ It is rash to say that he means annihilation; still 
more rash to say that he means endless torment. Eternal loss 
or exclusion may be meant. 

pwpia. See on v. 21 and 2 Cor. iv. 3. 

tots 8€ owlouévors. It is not quite adequate to render this 
‘to those who are in course of being saved.’ Salvation is the 
certain result (xv. 2) of a certain relation to God, which relation 
is a thing of the present. This relation had a beginning (Rom. 
vill, 24), is a fact now (Eph. ii. 5, 8), and characterizes our 
present state (Acts il. 47); but its inalienable confirmation 
belongs to the final adoption or dzroAvrpwors (Rom. viii. 23; cf. 
Eph. iv. 30). Meanwhile there is great need for watchful 
steadfastness, lest, by falling away, we lose our filial relation to 
God. Consider'x. 12, ix. 275) Gal) v. 45, Mate oat. aes 

jpiv. ‘As we have good cause to know.’ The addition of 
the pronoun throws a touch of personal warmth into this side 
of the statement: ‘you and I can witness to that.’ * 

Suvapis Geos eotiv. See Rom. i. 16. Not merely ‘a demon- 
_ stration of God’s power,’ nor ‘a power of God,’ but ‘God’s 
power.’ The contrast between dvvayis (not codia) @cod and 
pwpia belongs to the very core of St Paul’s teaching (ii. 4; cf. iv. 
20). Wisdom can carry conviction, but to save,—to give illumina- 
tion, penitence, sanctification, love, peace, and hope to a human 
soul,—needs power, and divine power. ~ 


19. yéyparta ydp. Proof of what is stated in v. 18, te. as 
regards the failure of worldly cleverness in dealing with the things 
of God. By yéyparra, used absolutely, St Paul always means 


* Both Irenaeus (I. iii. 5) and Marcion (Tert. Mare. v. 5) omit the jpiv, 
and Marcion seems to have read dtvayus xal copia Geo éorly, To omit the 
juiy is to omit a characteristic touch; and to insert xal copia rather spoils 
the point. 


I. 19, 20] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 19 


thewOvd.. Scriptures 5.0; 91,/1. 9,1. 19,°x:. 7, xv. 45.3 Romi: & 
P7j il. 24, 111, 4, ro, etc. 

amok Thy gopiay. From Isa. xxix. 14 (LXX), substituting 
adernow for kpvyw, in accordance with St Paul’s usual freedom 
of citation.* The Prophet, referring to the failure of worldly 
statesmanship in Judah in face of the judgment of the Assyrian 
invasion, states a principle which the Apostle seizes and applies. 
Possibly a6er70w comes from Ps. xxxiii. 10. 

avveow. Worldly common sense (Matt. xi. 25). It has its 
place in the mind that is informed by the Spirit of God (Col. i. 9), 
and the absence of it is a calamity (Rom. i. 21, 31). On ovveows 
and cod¢ia see Arist. Eth. Wic. VI. vii. to. 

é8ermow. The verb is post-classical, frequent in Polybius 
and LXX. Its etymological sense is not ‘destroy,’ but ‘set 
aside’ or ‘set at nought,’ and this meaning satisfies the present 
passage and the use in N.T. generally. 


20. mod copds; A very free citation from the general sense 
of Isa. xxxiii. 18 (cf. xix. 12): St Paul adapts the wording to his 
immediate purpose. The original passage refers to the time 
following on the disappearance of the Assyrian conqueror, with 
his staff of clerks, accountants, and takers of inventories, who 
registered the details of the spoil of a captured city. On the 
tablet of Shalmaneser in the Assyrian Gallery of the British 
Museum there is a surprisingly exact picture of the scene described 
by Isaiah. The marvellous disappearance of the invading host 
was to Isaiah a signal vindication of Jehovah’s power and care, 
and also a refutation, not so much of the conqueror’s ‘scribes,’ 
as of the worldly counsellors at Jerusalem, who had first thought 
to meet the invader by an alliance with Egypt, or other 
methods of statecraft, and had then relapsed into demoralized 
despair. St Paul’s use of the passage, therefore, although very 
free, is not alien to its historical setting. See further on ii. 9 
respecting examples of free quotation. For rod; see xv. 55; 
Rom, iii. 27. The question is asked in a triumphant tone.t 

The ‘wise’ is a category more suitable to the Gentile (v. 22), 
the ‘scribe’ to the Jew, while the ‘disputer’ no doubt suits 
Greeks, but suits Jews equally well (Acts vi. 9, ix. 29, xxviii. 29). 
This allotment of the terms is adopted by Clement of Alexandria 
and by Theodoret, and is more probable than that of Meyer and 


* He quotes from Isa. xxix. in Col. ii. 22 and Rom. ix. 20. Our Lord 
quotes from it Matt. xi. 5, xv. 8f. 

+ He may have in his mind Isa. xix. 12, rov elow viv oi copol cov; and 
Isa. xxxiii. 18, rod elow ol ypauparixol; mov elaw ol cupBovdevortes ; No- 
where else in N.T., outside Gospels and Acts, does ypaupare’s occur. 
Bachmann shows that there is a parallel between the situation in Isaiah and 
the situation here ; but tov alwvos rovrov goes beyond the former. 


20 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 20, 21 


Ellicott, which makes od¢os generic, while ypapparevs is applied 
to the Tew, and ovvfyryntys to the Greek. But it is unlikely 
that St Paul is here making an exact classification, or means any 
one of the terms to be applied to Jew or Gentile exclusively. 

ouvintms. A dag Acyopevov, excepting Ign. ZPA. 18, from 
this passage. 

ToG aidvos tovrov. This is certainly applicable to Jews (see on 
ii. 8), but not to them exclusively (Gal. i. 4; Rom, xii. 2). The 
phrase 1 is rabbinical, denoting the time before the Messianic age 
or ‘age to come’ (Luke xvili. 30, xx. 35). Z/is aidv, the state of 
things now present, including the ethical and social conditions 
which are as yet unchanged by the coming of Christ, is i 
(vii. 31), and is saturated with low motives and irreligion (ii. 6 ; 
2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii, 2). As aiwv, “by metonymy of the 
container for the contained,” denotes the things existing in time, 
in short the world, 6 aiwy otros may be rendered ‘this world’ ; 
hujus saeculi quod totum est extra sphaeram verbi crucis (Beng.). 
See Grimm-Thayer s.v. aidv, and the references at the end of the 
article; also Trench, Syz. §lix. The genitive belongs to all 
three nouns. 

obxt épdpavev; Wonne stultam fecit (Vulg.), infatuavit (Tertull. 
and Beza). Cf. Rom. i. 22, 23, and Isa. xix. 11, xliv. 25, 33. 
The passage in Romans is an expansion of the ‘thought here. 
God not only showed the futility of the world’s wisdom, but 
frustrated it by leaving it to work out its own results, and still 
more by the power of the Cross, effecting what human wisdom 
could not do,—not even under the Law (Rom. viii. 3). 

tod kéopou. Practically synonymous with tod aidvos tovrou 
(ii, 12, iii. 18, 19): but we do not find 6 xdécpos 6 méAXAwv, for 
xéapos is simply the existing universe, and is not always referred 
to with censure (v. 10; John iii. 16).* 

After xécuov, 8?C3D'*EFGL, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. add rovrov. 


8* A BC* D* P 17, Orig. omit. It is doubtless an insertion from the 
previous clause. 


21. émeid} ydp. Introduces, as the main thought, God’s 
refutation of the world’s wisdom by means of what the world 
holds to be folly, viz. the word of the Cross, thus explaining 
(yép) what was stated in vv. 19, 20. But this main thought 
presupposes (ézed)) the self-stultification of the world’s wisdom 
in the providence of God. 

év ti sofia tod Ocod. This is taken by Chrysostom and 
others (e.g. Edwards, Ellicott) as God’s wisdom displayed in His 


*St Paul uses xécpos nearly fifty times, and most often in 1 and 2 Cor. 
With him the use of the word in an ethical sense, of what in the main is evil, 
is not = (ii. 12, iii, 19, v. 10, xi. 32). See Hobhouse, Bampton Lectures, 
pp: 352f. 


Zr. 21, 22 THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 2I 


works (Rom. i. 20; Acts xiv. 17), by which (év quasi-instrumental) 
the world ought to have attained to a knowledge of Him. But 
this sense of codia would be harsh and abrupt ; and the order of 
the words is against this interpretation, as is also the context 
(€udpavey, evdodxnoev 6 eds). ‘The wisdom of God’ is here 
God’s wise dealing with mankind in the history of religion, 
especially in permitting them to be ignorant (Acts xvii. 30; 
Rom. xi. 32; cf. Acts xiv. 16; Rom. i. 24). So Alford, Findlay, 
Evans, Lightfoot. 

oux éyyw. This applies to Jew as well as to Greek, although 
not in the same manner and degree. ‘‘The Pharisee, no less 
than the Greek philosopher, had a co¢éa of his own, which stood 
between his heart and the knowledge of God” (Lightfoot). See 
Rom. x. 2. The world’s wisdom failed, the Divine ‘foolishness’ 
succeeded. 

ed8dxnoev. Connects directly with yép. The word belongs 
to late Greek: Rom. xv. 26; Gal. i. 15; Col. i. 19. 

Std THs pwpias Tod Kynpypatos. Cf. Isa. xxvili.g—13. Kypvypa 
(Matt. xii. 41) differs from xypvgéis as the aorist does from the 
present or imperfect : it denotes the action, not in process, but 
completed, or viewed as a whole. It denotes, not ‘the thing 
preached’ (RV. marg.), but ‘the proclamation’ itself (ii. 4; 
2 Tim. iv. 17); and here it stands practically for ‘the word of 
the Cross’ (v. 18), or the Gospel, but with a slight emphasis 
upon the presentation. Kypvooewv, which in earlier Greek meant 
‘to herald,’ passes into its N.T. and Christian use by the fact 
that the ‘Good-tidings’ proclaimed by Christ and His Apostles 
was the germ of all Christian teaching (Matt. ili. 1, iv. 17). 
‘The foolishness of preaching’ is a bold oxymoron (cf. v. 25), 
presupposing and interpreting v. 18. In N.T., pwpia is peculiar 
to 1 Cor. (18, 23, ii. 14, ili. 19). 

tovs muotevovras. With emphasis at the end of the sentence, 
solving the paradox of God’s will to work salvation for man 
through ‘foolishness.’ The habit of faith (pres. part.), and not 
cleverness, is the power by which salvation is appropriated (Rom. 
i. 17, ili. 25). He does not say trois muorevocavtas, which might 
mean that to have once believed was enough. 


22. éweidj. This looks forward to v. 23, to which v. 22 isa 
kind of protasis: ‘Since—while Jews and Gentiles alike demand 
something which suits their unsympathetic limitations—we, on 
the other hand, preach,’ etc. The two verses explain, with refer- 
ence to the psychology of the religious world at that time, what 
has been said generally in vv. 18, 21. The repeated xaé brackets 
(Rom. iii. 9) the typical Greek with the typical Jew, as the lead- 
ing examples, in the world in which St Paul’s readers lived, of 


22 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 22, 23 


the doAAvpevor, the xoopos and its wisdom. In a similar way 
the opposed sects of Epicureans and Stoics are bracketed by St 
Luke (Acts xvii.) as belonging, for his purpose, to one category. 
By the absence of the article (not ‘¢he Jews,’ ‘¢he Greeks,’ as 
in AV.) the terms connote characteristic attributes rather than 
denote the individuals. There were many exceptions, as the 
N.T. shows. 

onpeta aitovow. Matt. xii. 38, xvi. 4; John iv. 48. The 
Jewish mind was matter-of-fact and crudely concrete. ‘“ Hebrew 
idiom makes everything as concrete as possible” (R. H. Kennett). 
There were certain wonders specified as to be worked by the 
Messiah when He came, and these they ‘asked for’ importun- 
ately and precisely. The Greek restlessly felt after something 
which could dazzle his ingenious speculative turn, and he passed 
by anything which failed to satisfy intellectual curiosity (Acts 
xvii. 18, 21, 32).* Lightfoot points to the difference between 
the arguments used by Justin in his Apologies addressed to 
Gentiles, and those used by him in his controversy with Trypho 
the Jew.t See Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 393. 

The AV. has ‘ require a sign.’ L, Arm. have cnueiov. Beyond question 


onueta (NW A BCD, etc.) must be read: ‘ask for signs’ is right. B. Weiss 
prefers onueiov.t 


23. Xpiotév éotavpwpévov. ‘A crucified Messiah’ (ii. 2; 
Gal. iii. 1). ‘We preach a Christ crucified’ (RV. marg.), the 
very point at which the argument with a Jew encountered a wall 
of prejudice (Acts xxvi. 23, ef ra6yros 6 Xpuords. Cf. Gal. ii. 21, 
v. 11). The Jews demanded a victorious Christ, heralded by 
oneia, Who would restore the glories of the kingdom of David 
and Solomon. To the Jew the Cross was the sufficient and 
decisive refutation (Matt. xxvii. 42; cf. Luke xxiv. 21) of the 
claim that Jesus was the Christ. To the first preachers of Christ, 
the Cross was the atonement for sin (xv. 3, 11). On this subject 
the Jew had to unlearn before he could learn; and so also, in 
a different way, had the Greek. Both had to learn the divine 
character of humility. Christ was not preached as a conqueror 
to please the one, nor as a philosopher to please the other: He 
was preached as the crucified Nazarene. 

€Oveowy 8€ pwpiav. The heathen, prepared to weigh the ‘fros 
and cons’ of a new system, lacked the presuppositions which 
might have prepared the Jew for simple faith in the Christ. To 
him, the Gospel presented no prima facie case ; it was unmean- 


* Gratos, gui vera reguirunt (Lucr. i. 641). 

t See also Biblical Essays, pp. 150f., and Edwards ad Joc. 

t Yet he interprets it in a plural sense. Eichhorn more consistently inter- 
prets it of a worldly Messiah, Mosheim of a miraculous deliverance of Jesus 
from crucifixion. 


I. 23-25] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 23 


ing, not even plausible: he was not, like the Jew, bent on 
righteousness (Rom. ix. 30-x. 3). Compare Cicero’s horror of 
crucifixion (Pro Radir. 5), Lucian’s reference to our Saviour 
(De mort. Peregr. 13) as tov averxodXoritpevov exeivoy coduatiy, 
and the well-known caricature, found on the Palatine, of a slave 
bowing down to a crucified figure with an ass’s head, inscribed 
AXe~apevos Geov oeBerat. 


A few authorities (C® D*, Clem—Alex.) have "EAXyor instead of €@veouw. 
Orig. seems to have both readings. 


24. adrois corresponds to yyy in v. 18, as tots KAnTots to Tots 
owlouevors: ‘to the actual believers’ in contrast to other Jews 
and Gentiles. The pronoun is an appeal to personal experience, 
as against objections aé ex/ra, 

Xpiotov. This implies the repetition of eoravpwpeévov. It is 
in the Cross that God’s power (Rom i. 16) and wisdom (z. 30, 
below) come into operation for the salvation of man. God's 
power and wisdom show themselves in a way which is not in 
accordance with men’s a frviori standards: they altogether tran- 
scend such standards. 

Whether St Paul is here touching directly the line of thought 
which is expressed in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel is very 
doubtful. He may be said to do so indirectly, in so far as the 
doctrine of the work of Christ involves that of His Person (Col. 
i. 17-20, ii. g).* 


25. 76 p@pov tod Geod. Either, ‘a foolish thing on God’s 
part’ (such as a crucified Messiah), or, better, ‘the foolishness of 
God’ (AV.), in a somewhat rhetorical sense, not to be pressed. 
God’s wisdom, at its lowest, is wiser than men, and God’s power, 
at its weakest, is stronger than men. It is quite possible to 
treat the construction as a condensed comparison ; ‘than men’s 
wisdom,’ ‘than men’s power’ (Matt. v. 20; John v. 36). So 
Lightfoot, Conybeare and Howson, etc. Jnfirmitas Christi 
magna victoria est (Primasius). Victus vicit mortem, quam nullus 
gigas evasit (Herv.). Mortem, quam reges, gigantes, et principes 
superare non poterant, tpse mortendo victt (Atto). 


Throughout the above passage (17-25) we may note the 
close sequence of explanatory conjunctions, ydp (18, 19, 21), 
éretdy (22), dr. (25). Without pretending to seize every nuance 


* “This means that Christ stands for God’s wisdom upon earth, and exer- 
cises God’s power among men. Such a view implies a very close relation 
with the Godhead. But it should also be noted that this is still connected in 
St Paul’s mind with the Mission that has been laid upon Jesus, rather than 
regarded as the outcome of His essential nature” (Durell, 7he Self- Revelation 
of our Lord, p. 150). On the order of the words Bengel remarks that we 
recognize God’s power before we recognize His wisdom, 


24 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 25, 26 


of transition, or to call the Apostle to stringent account for every 
conjunction that he uses, the connexion of the successive clauses 
may be made fairly plain by following it in the order of thought. 
The yap and or, going from effect to cause, present the sequence 
in reverse order. In following the order of thought, however, we 
must not forget that proof is sometimes from broad principles, 
sometimes from particular facts. The order works out somewhat 
as follows :— 

The Divine Power and Wisdom, at their seeming lowest, are 
far above man’s highest (25); for this reason (22-24) our Gospel 
—a poor thing in the eyes of men, is, to those who know it, the 
Power and Wisdom of God. This exemplifies (21) the truth 
underlying the history of the world, that man’s wisdom is con- 
victed of failure by the simplicity of the truth as declared by 
God. This is how God, now as of old, turns to folly the wisdom 
of the wise (19, 20), a principle which explains the opposite look 
which the ‘word of the Cross’ has to the azoAAvevor and the 
owlopevor (18): and that is why (17) my mission is to preach 
ovk ev copia Aoyov. 

As a chain of explanatory statements, the argument might 
have gone straight from v. 18 to v. 22; but St Paul would not 
omit a twofold appeal, most characteristic of his mind, to Scrip- 
ture (19, 20), and to the religious history of mankind (21), the 
latter being exhibited as a verification of the other. 

Texts vary considerably as to the position of éeriv in the first clause of 
v. 25, and also in the second clause. In the second, 8* B 17 omit éoriv, 
and it is probably an interpolation from the first. 

26. Bdéemete ydp. An unanswerable argumentum ad hominem, 
clinching the result of the above passage, especially the compre- 
hensive principle of v. 25. The verb is imperative (RV.), not 
indicative (AV.), and governs tiv xAnow directly. It is needless 
subtlety to make r. xX. an accusative of respect, ‘ Behold—with 
reference to your call—how that not many,’ etc. 

Tv KAjow duav. ‘Summon before your mind’s eye what took 
place then; note the ranks from which one by one you were 
summoned into the society of God’s people ; very few come from 
the educated, influential, or well-connected class.’ With «Ajots 
compare kAyroi, vv. 2, 24: it refers, not so much to the external 
call, or even to the internal call of God, as to the conversion 
which presupposes the latter: wdvrwv avOpwirwv KexAnpevwy ot 
traxodvoat BovAnbevtes KANTO! dvouacOnoav (Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 
p. 314). See on vii. 20, and Westcott on Eph. i. 18. 


I. 26-28 | THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 25 


aSedpoi. As in v. 10, the affectionate address softens what 
might give pain. 

drt ob oddoi. A substantival clause, in apposition to x«Ajow 
as the part to the whole: they are to ‘behold their calling,’ 
specially noting these facts which characterized it. From ‘not 
many’ we may assume that in each case there were some: but 
xX. 5 warns us against interpreting od rodAoé as meaning more 
than ‘very few.’ 

kata odpxa. This applies to dvvaroé and edyevets as well as to 
gopot. Each of the three terms is capable of a higher sense, 
as evyevets in Acts xvii. 11; each may be taken either (1) as a 
predicate, ‘not many of the called were wise,’ etc. ; or (2) as 
belonging to the subject, the predicate being understood, ‘not 
many wise ad part therein’; or (3) like (2), but with a different 
predicate, ‘not many wise weve called’ (AV-, RV.). The last is 
best. 

Some of the converts were persons of culture and position ; 
Dionysius at Athens (Acts xvii. 34), Erastus at Corinth (Rom. 
xvi. 23), the ladies at Thessalonica and Beroea (Acts xvii. 4, 12). 
But the names known to us (xvi. 17; Rom. xvi.) are mostly 
suggestive of slaves or freedmen. Lightfoot refers to Just. Afo/. 
Bee; Orig. Cels.. it. 70, * 


27. Ta pwpd. Cf. Matt. xi. 25. The gender lends force to the 
paradox: tovs codovs leads us to expect tots ixyvupovs, x.7.A., but 
the contrast of genders is not kept up in the other cases. 

éfehefato. The verb is the correlative of xAjows (26), but 
here, as in many other places, it brings in the idea of choice for 
a particular end. Thus, of the choosing of Matthias, of Stephen, 
of St Paul as a oxevos éxAoy7s, of St Peter to admit the first 
Gentiles (Acts xv. 7). The emphatic threefold éfeAéfato 6 @eds 
prepares the way for v. 31. See iv. 7 and Eph. ii. 8. The 
Church, like the Apostle (2 Cor. xii. 10), was strong in weak- 
ness. 


28. efoulevnueva. See on vi. 4; also 2 Cor. x. 10. "Ayers 
here only. 

kat Ta p17) Svta. ‘Yea things that are not.’ The omission of 
the cai (§* A C* D* FG 17) gives force to the (then) “studi- 


* A century later it was a common reproach that Christianity was a 
religion of the vulgar, and Apologists were content to imitate St Paul and 
glory in the fact, rather than deny it. But the charge became steadily less 
and less true. In Pliny’s famous letter to Trajan, he speaks of multé omnis 
ordinzs being Christians, See Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christi- 
anity, bk. iv. ch. 2; Lightfoot, Clement, I. p. 30. Celsus, who urges this 
reproach, would not have written a serious treatise against the faith, if people 
of culture and position were not beginning to adopt it, See Glover, Conflict 
of Religions in the Roman Empire, ch. 9. 


26 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 28-30 


ously unconnected” and hyperbolical ra py dvta: but the kai 
(8° BC? D'E LP, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is quite in St 
Paul’s style. The py does not mean ‘supposed not to exist,’ but 
‘non-existent,’ yy with participles being much more common 
than ov. 

katapyyjoyn. ‘The verb means ‘to reduce a person or thing to 
ineffectiveness,’ ‘to render work/ess or inoperative,’ and so ‘to 
bring to nought.’ It is thus a stronger word than xaratoyvvy, 
and is substituted for it to match the antithesis between dvra 
and pi dvra. It is very frequent in this group of the Pauline 
Epistles. Elsewhere it is rare (2 Thess. ii. 8; 2 Tim. i. 10; 
Luke xiii. 7; Heb. ii. 14); only four times in LXX, and very rare 
in Greek authors. Cf. xevw6y, v. 17, and Kevisoe, ix. 15. 


Instead of ra dyev7] Tod Kbcmov, Marcion (Tert. Marc. v. 5, zhonesta et 
minima) seems to have read ra ayev7) kal Ta EX XLOTA. 


29. omws pi) Kavxjonta waca odp—t. For the construction see 
Rom. iil. 20; Acts x. 14. The negative coheres with the verb, 
not with aoa: in xv. 39 (ov waca odpé) the negative coheres 
with waéca. Iladoa oadpf is a well-known Hebraism (Acts ii. 17), 
meaning here the human race apart from the Spirit ; ‘that all 
mankind should abstain from glorying before God.’ * 

évwtov Tod Geod. Another Hebraic phrase. Von coram illo 
sed in illo gloriori possumus (Beng.). 


‘In His presence’ (AV.) comes from the false reading évwmiov abrod 
(C, Vulg. Syrr.). The true reading (8 ABC? DEFGLP, Copt. Aeth.) 
is a forcible contrast to méoa odpé. 


30. && adtod S€ Guets eore. ‘ But ve (in emphatic contrast) are 
fits children’ (another contrast). This is their true dignity, and 
the d€ shows how different their case is from that of those just 
mentioned. ‘The wise, the strong, the well-born, etc. may boast 
of what seems to distinguish them from others, éwf it is the 
Christian who really has solid ground for glorying. Some would 
translate ‘ But it proceeds from Him that ye are in Christ Jesus,’ 
ze. ‘your being Christians is His doing.’ But in that case tpets 
éore (note the accentuation) is hard to explain: the pronoun is 
superfluous: we should expect simply év Xpio7é “Inood éore. 
Moreover, the sense given to éé avrod is hard to justify. It is 
far more probable that we ought to read ipets éoré (WH., Light- 
foot, Ellicott) and not ipeis éore (T.R.). The meaning will then 
be, ‘But from Am ye have your being in Christ Jesus.’ The 


* Renan (5, Paul, p. 233) gives xavydouat as an instance of the way in 
which a word gets a hold on the Apostle’s mind so that he keeps on repeating 
it: um mot Pobsede ; tl le raméene dans une page & tout propos; not for want 
of vocabulary, but because he cares so much more about his meaning than his 
style (v.17). Cf. v. 31, iii. 21, iv. 7, v. 6, ix. 15, 16, xv. 31. 


I.30] | THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 27 


addition of é Xp. ‘I. shows that more is meant than being His 
offspring in the sense of Acts xvii. 28. ‘By adoption in Christ 
you are among things that really exist, although you may be 
counted as nonentities: in this there is room for glorying’ (iy. 7; 
Eph. ii. 8f.). This is the interpretation of the Greek Fathers, 
probably from a sense of the idiom, and not from bias of any 
kind.* 

ds eyerny. This shows what the previous words involve. 
Not ‘who is made’ (AV.), nor ‘who was made’ (RV.), but ‘who 
became’ by His coming into the world and by what He accom- 
plished for us. He showed the highest that God could show to 
man (v. 18, il. 7), and opened the way to the knowledge of God 
through reconciliation with Him. 

sofia ypiv. This is the central idea, in contrast with the 
false copia in the context, and it is expanded in the terms which 
follow. For the dative see vv. 18, 24. 

dmé Geod. The words justify éé airot and qualify éyevyby . . . 
Helv, not copia only. The azo points to the source of x/timate 
derivation. See Lightfoot on 1 Thess. ii. 3. 

Stxatocdvy Te Kal... dmoddtpwois. The terms, linked into 
one group by the conjunctions, are in apposition to coda and 
define it (RV. marg.): the four terms are not co-ordinate (AV., 
RV.).t Lightfoot suggests, on not very convincing grounds, 
that re kai serve to connect specially éd:catoovvn and aytacpos, 
leaving doAvtpwois “rather by itself.” The close connexion 
between dix. and day. is, of course, evident (Rom. vi. 19), dix. 
being used by St Paul of the moral state founded upon and flow- 
ing from, faith in Christ (Rom. x. 4, 10, vi. 13; Gal. v. 5; Phil. 
lii. 9), and ay. being used of the same state viewed as progress 
towards perfect holiness (v. 2; 1 Thess. iv. 3-7). By ‘righteous- 
ness’ he does not mean ‘justification’: that is presupposed and 
included. ‘Righteousness’ is the character of the justified man 
in its practical working. ‘This good life of the pardoned sinner 
is to be distinguished from (a) God’s righteousness (Rom. iii. 26, 
by which we explain Rom. i. 17), and from (4) Righteousness in 
the abstract sense of a right relation between persons (Acts x. 35, 
XXIV. 25). 

kat Gmohttpwors. Placed last for emphasis, as being the 
foundation of all else that we have in Christ (Rom. v. 9, 10, 
Vili. 32; cf. ili. 24). Others explain the order by reference to 
the thought of fiza/ or completed redemption (Luke xxi. 28 ; Eph. 


*See Deissmann, Die neutestamentliche Formel ‘‘in Christo Jesu.” 
Chrysostom remarks how St Paul keeps ‘‘ nailing them to the Name of 
Christ.” P 

+ It was probably in order to co-ordinate all four that L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. 
Arm. have 7jyiv before codia. 


28 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [LI. 30, 31 


i. 14, iv. 30). Redemptio primum Christi donum est quod inchoatur 
in nobis, et ultimum perficitur (Calv.). The former is better, but 
it does not exclude the latter. 


81. tva xabws yéypamra. Cf. v. 15. We have here a case 
either of broken construction, a direct being substituted for a 
dependent clause (ix. 15), or of ellipse, a verb like yévyrac being 
understood (iv. 6, xi. 24; 2 Thess. ii. 3; Gal. i. 20, etc.). 

5 kavydpevos. A free quotation, combining the LXX of Jer. 
ix. 23, 24 with 1 Sam. ii. 10, which resembles it. Jer. 1x. 23, 24 
runs, 7 Kavyacbw 6 codos ev tH codia airov kai py Kavyacbw 6 
ioxupos év TH icxvt airod Kat py KavxdoOw 6 rAovoLos ev TH TAOUTW 
avtov, add’ 7 ev ToUTw KavVXacOw 6 KaVXwpEVOS, TuVLEV Kal 
ywodoxew Ore éyd eipt Kipios 6 rovdv €Xeos. In 1 Sam. ii. 10 we 
have dvvardés and duvaye for ioxyvpds and ic ii, with the ending, 
ywadokew Tov Kipiov Kat rrovetv Kpipa Kai duxatoovvnv ev peod THs 
yns. The occurrence of ‘the wise’ and ‘the strong’ and ‘the 
rich’ (as in v. 26 here) makes the quotation very apt. 

Clement of Rome (Cov. 13) quotes the same passage, but 
ends thus; add’ 7 6 Kavywpevos ev Kupiw xavxacOw tod exlyreiv 
avrov Kal oveivy Kpiva Kat dixacoovvny, thus approximating to 
St Paul’s quotation. Probably he quotes the LXX and un- 
consciously assimilates his quotation to St Paul’s. Lightfoot 
suggests that both the Apostle and Clement may have had a 
Greek version of 1 Sam. which differed from the LXX. For a 
false ‘glorying in God’ see Rom. iii. 17, and for a true glorying, 
Ecclus. xxxix. 8, 1. 20. 

Bachmann remarks that this is one of the remarkable quota- 
tions in which, by a free development of O.T. ideas and expres- 
sions, Christ takes the place of Jehovah ; and he quotes as other 
instances in Paul, ii. 16, x. 22; 2 Cor. x. 17; Phil. ii. 11; Rom. 
x. 13. Hort’s remarks on 1 Pet. ii. 3, where 6 Kvpuos in Ps. xxxiv. 
8 is transferred by the Apostle to Christ, will fit this and other 
passages. ‘It would be rash, however, to conclude that he meant 
to identify Jehovah with Christ. No such identification can be 
clearly made out in the N.T. St Peter is not here making a 
formal quotation, but merely borrowing O.T. language, and 
applying it in his own manner. His use, though different from 
that of the Psalm, is not at variance with it, for it is through the 
xpyororns of the Son that the xpyororns of the Father is clearly 
made known to Christians.” The Father is glorified in the Son 
(John xiv. 13), and therefore language about glorifying the Father 
may, without irreverence, be transferred to the Son; but the 
transfer to Christ would have been irreverent if St Paul had not 
believed that Jesus was what He claimed to be. 

Deissmann (ew Light on the N.T., p. 7) remarks that the 


a 1] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 29 


testimony of St Paul at the close of this chapter, “as to the 
origin of his congregations in the lower class of the great towns, 
is one of the most important historical witnesses to Primitive 
Christianity.” See also, Light from the Anc. East, pp. 7, 14, 
60, 142. 


II. 1-5. The False Wisdom (continued). 


So I came to you and preached, not a beautiful philosophy, 
but a crucified Christ. I was a feeble, timid speaker ; and 
zt was not my eloquence, but the power of God, that converted 
you. 


1 And (in accordance with this principle of glory only in the 
Lord) when I first came to Corinth, Brothers, it was as quite an 
ordinary person (so far as any pre-eminence in speech or wisdom 
is concerned) that I proclaimed to you the testimony of God’s | 
love for you. *ForI did not care to know, still less to preach, | 
anything whatever beyond Jesus Christ; and what I preached 
about Him was that He was crucified. *%And, as I say, it was 
in weakness and timidity and painful nervousness that I paid my 
visit to you: and my speech to you and my message to you 
were not conveyed in the persuasive words which earthly 
wisdom adopts. No, their cogency came from God’s Spirit and 
God’s power ; °for God intended that your faith should rest on 
His power, and not on the wisdom of man. 


1. xdéys. ‘And I, accordingly.’ The kat emphasizes the 
Apostle’s consistency with the principles and facts laid down in 
i. 18-31, especially in 27-31. His first preaching at Corinth 
eschewed the false copia, and conformed to the essential character 
of the Gospel. ‘The negative side comes first (vv. 1, 2). 

e€h@dv. At the time of his first visit (Acts viii. 1f.). We 
have an analogous reference, 1 Thess. i. 5, ii. 1. 

&8edpoi. The rebuke latent in this reminder, and the affec- 
tionate memories of his first ministry to souls at Corinth (iv. 15), 
combine to explain this address (i. 10, 26). 

HdOov. The repetition, €AGov mpos tyuads . . . #APov, instead of 
RAGov mpos twas, is not a case of broken construction, still less 
a Hebraism. It gives solemn clearness and directness to St 
Paul’s appeal to their beginnings as a Christian body. 

xa@ bmepoxnv. Most commentators connect the words with 
katayyéAAwy rather than 7AGov. Compare xara xpdros (Acts xix. 
20), ka’ imepBodnv (1 Cor. xii. 31). Elsewhere in N.T. tarepoyy 


30 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [1I. 1,2 


occurs only 1 Tim. ii. 2; cf. twepéxew, Rom. xiii. 1, etc. ‘ Pre- 
eminence’ is an exact equivalent. 

Adyou Haopias. See oni. 5, 17. 

katayyeAhwv. The tense marks, not the purpose of the visit, 
for which the future would be suitable, but the way in which the 
visit was occupied. The aorists sum it upas awhole. Lightfoot 
suggests that dyyeAAew after verbs of mission or arrival (Acts xv. 
27) is commonly in the fvesent participle, as meaning ‘to dear, 
rather than to deliver, tidings.’ But this does not always suit 
katayyeAAew in N.T.; see xi. 26; Acts iv. 2; Rom. i. 8; Phil. i. 17; 
and ayyéAXev, uncompounded, occurs only John xx. 18, with 
amayy. as v./. 

paptupiov. ‘He spoke in plain and simple language, as be- 
came a witness’ (Lightfoot). Zestimonium simpliciter dicendum 
est: nec eloquentia nec subtilitate ingenti opus est, guae testem sus- 
pectum potius reddit (Wetstein). Cf. xv. 15; 2 Thess. i. 10; 
1 Tim. il. 6; 2 Tim. i. 8. The first reference is decisive as to 
the meaning here. — 

Tod Ocod. genitivus objectias in i. 6. The testimony is the 
message of God’s love to mankind declared in the saving work 
of Christ (Rom. v. 8; John iii. 16); it is therefore a papzivpiov 
t. @eod as well as a papr. rt. Xpicrov. There is, of course, a 
witness from God (1 John v. 9), but the present connexion is 
with the Apostolic message about God and His Christ. 


papripov (XN? BDEFGLP, Vulg. Sah. Aeth. Arm. AV. RV. marg.) 
is probably to be preferred to wvorjpiov (N* AC, Copt. RV.). WH. 
prefer the latter; but it may owe its origin to v. 7. On the other hand, 
papt. may come from i. 6. 


2. od yap Expiwa tu eidevar. ‘Not only did I not speak of, 
but I had no thought for, anything else.’ Cf. Acts xviii. 5, ovvei- 
xeTo TO Adyw, ‘he became engrossed in the word.’ For xpivew 
of a personal resolve see vii. 37; Rom. xiv. 13; 2 Cor. ii. 1. 
Does the od connect directly with ékpwa or with te eidévar, as 
in AV., RV.? The latter is attractive on account of its incisive- 
ness ; ‘I deliberately refused to know anything.’ But it assumes 
that ov« expwa=éxpwa ov, on the familiar analogy of od dnp. 
Apparently there is no authority for this use of ovx éxpwa: ovK «0, 
as Lightfoot points out, is not strictly analogous. Accordingly, 
we must preserve the connexion suitable to the order of the 
words ; ‘I did not think fit to know anything.’ He did not 
regard it as his business to know more. Ellicott remarks that 
“the meaning is practically the same”: but we must not give to 
a satisfactory meaning the support of unsatisfactory grammar. 

tT eidevar. Not quite in the sense of éyvwxévar te (viii. 2), 
‘to know something,’ as Evans here. In that case ei wy would 
mean ‘but only.’ But 7 simply means ‘anything’ whatever. 


a 


II. 2, 3] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 31 


*Ingodv Xpiorév. As ini. 13 contrast i. 23. In the Epistles 
of this date, Xpuoros still designates primarily the Office ; ‘Jesus, 
the Anointed One, and that (not as King in His glory, but)— 
crucified.’ 

kat TodTov €otaupwpévov.* The force of kat rodrov is definitely 
to specify the point on which, in preaching Jesus Christ, stress 
was laid (6 Adyos 7. oravpov, i. 18), the effect being that of a | 
climax. The Apostle regards the Person and Work of Jesus 
the Messiah as comprising in essence the whole Gospel, and 
the Crucifixion, which with him involves the Resurrection, as 
the turning-point of any preaching of his work. This most vital 
point must not be forgotten when considering vz. 6 f. below. 


tt eldévac (BC P 17) is to be preferred to eldévac 71 (NAD? FGL). 
D* L ins. tod before efSévac 71. 


3. kdydé. He now gives the positive side—in what fashion he 
did come (3-5). As in v. 1, the éyd is emphatic; but here the 
emphasis is one of contrast. ‘Although I was the vehicle of 
God’s power (1. 18, ii. 4, 5), I not only eschewed all affectation 
of cleverness or grandiloquence, but I went to the opposite 
extreme of diffidence and nervous self-effacement. Others in my 
place might have been bolder, but I personally was as I say.’ 
Or else we may take v. 3 as beginning again at the same point 
as v. 1; as if the Apostle had been interrupted after dictating 
v. 2, and had then begun afresh. Lightfoot regards xéyé as 
simply an emphatic repetition, citing Juvenal i. 15, 16, Z¢ nos 
ergo manum ferulae subduximus, et nos Consilium dedimus 
Sullae. 

ev doGeveta. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 29, xii. 10. The sense is general, 
but may include his unimpressive presence (2 Cor. x. 10) and 
shyness in venturing unaccompanied into strange surroundings 
(cf. Acts xvil. 15, Xvill. 5), coupled with anxiety as to the tidings 
which Timothy and Silvanus might bring (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 13). 
There was also the thought of the appalling wickedness of 
Corinth, of his poor success at Athens, and of the deadly hostility 
of the Jews to the infant Church of Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 5, 
13). Possibly the malady which had led to his first preaching 
in Galatia (Gal. iv. 13) was upon him once more. If this was 
epilepsy, or malarial fever (Ramsay), it might well be the recurrent 
trouble which he calls a ‘thorn for the flesh’ (2 Cor. xii. 7). 

€v $oBw kal €v tpdpw ToAAG. We have $dfos and tpopuos com- 
bined in 2 Cor. vii. 15; Phil. ii, 12; Eph. vi. 5. The physical 
manifestation of distress is a climax. St Paul rarely broke new 
ground without companions, and to face new hearers required 
an-effort for which he had to brace himself. But it was not the 
Gospel which he had to preach that made him tremble: he was 


32 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS _ [II. 3, 4 


‘not ashamed’ of that (Rom. i. 16). Nor was it fear of personal 
danger. It was rather “a trembling anxiety to perform a duty.” 
In Eph. vi. 5, slaves are told to obey their masters pera poBov x. 
tpopov, which means with that conscientious anxiety that is 
opposed to éfOadrpodovAia (Conybeare and Howson).* No 
other N.T. writer has this combination of ¢dBos and tpdpos. 
Some MSS. omit the second év. 

€yevouny tpds buds. These words are probably to be taken 
together, exactly as in xvi. 10; ‘I was with you.’ ‘The sense of 
becoming in the verb, and of movement in the preposition, is 
attenuated. ‘My vist to you was in weakness,’ preserves both 
the shade of meaning and the force of the tense. Cf. 2 John 12; 
1 Thess. ii. 7, 10. 


4. nal 6 ddyos pou. See on i. 5, 17. Various explanations 
have been given of the difference between Adyos and xypvypa, 
and it is clear that to make the former ‘private conversation,’ 
and the latter ‘ public preaching,’ is not satisfactory. Nor is the 
one the delivery of the message and the other the substance of 
it: see oni. 21. More probably, 6 Adyos looks back to i. 18, 
and means the Gospel which the Apostle preached, while 
Kypvypa is the act of proclamation, viewed, not as a process 
(kypvéts), but as a whole. Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 17. 

odk €v mois copias Adyos. The singular word més or 
me.Ods, which is found nowhere else, is the equivalent of the 
classical aavés, which Josephus (Amz. vil. ix. 1) uses of the 
plausible words of the lying prophet of 1 Kings xiii. The only 
exact parallel to wids or weibds from reiOw is pidds or pedds from 
geidoua, and in both cases the spelling with a diphthong seems 
to be incorrect (WH. App. p. 153). The rarity of the word has 
produced confusion in the text. Some cursives and Latin 
witnesses support a reading which is found in Origen and in 
Eus. Praep. Evang. i. 3., ev webot [avOpwrivys| codpias oywv, in 
persuasione saptentiae [humanae| verbi, or sermones for sermonts ; 
where zrefot is the dat. of wes. From this, évy weot codias 
has been conjectured as the original reading ; but the evidence 
of Ss ABCD EL P for ev ziOots or wreiBois is decisive ; + and while 
gopias Adyors almost certainly is genuine, dvOpwrivys almost 
certainly is not, except as interpretation. 

The meaning is that the false codia, the cleverness of the 
rhetorician, which the Apostle is disclaiming and combating 


* Three times in Acts (xviii. 9, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 24) St Paul receives en- 
couragement from the Lord. There was something in his temperament which 
needed this. In Corinth the vision assured him that his work was approved 
and would succeed. THe not only might work, he must do so (ix. 16). 


_t It is remarkable that the word has not been adopted by ecclesiastical 
writers, 


II.4] |§ THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 33 


throughout this passage, was specially directed to the art of 
persuasion: cf. mifavoAoyia (Col. ii. 4). 

dmodeiter. Not elsewhere in N.T. It has two very different 
meanings: (1) ‘display’ or ‘showing off’ (cf. iv. 9 and Luke 
i. 80), and (2) ‘demonstration’ in the sense of ‘stringent proof.’ 
The latter is the meaning here. Aristotle distinguishes it from 
avdXoyicpos. The latter proves that a certain conclusion follows 
from given premises, which may or may not be true. In dzo- 
devéis the premises are known to be true, and therefore the 
conclusion is not only logical, but certainly true. In Z¢h. Nic. 
I. ill. 4 we are told that to demand rigid demonstrations (dzro- 
defers) from a rhetorician is as unreasonable as to allow a 
mathematician to deal in mere plausibilities. Cf. Plato Phaed. 
77C, Theaet. 162 E.* St Paul is not dealing with scientific 
certainty: but he claims that the certitude of religious truth 
to the believer in the Gospel is as complete and as ‘ objective’ 
—equal in degree, though different in kind—as the certitude of 
scientific truth to the scientific mind. Mere human codia may 
dazzle and overwhelm and seem to be unanswerable, but assensum 
constringit non res ; it does not penetrate to those depths of the 
soul which are the seat of the decisions of a lifetime. The 
Stoics used azoddevéis in this sense. 

mvevpatos Kal Suvdpews. See on i. 18. The demonstration 
is that which is wrought by God’s power, especially His power 
to save man and give a new direction to his life, As it is all 
from God, why make a party-hero of the human instrument? 
Some Greek Fathers suppose that miracle-working power is 
meant, which is an idea remote from the context. Origen 
refers zvevpatos to the O.T. prophecies, and duvdpews to the 
N.T. miracles, thus approximating to the merely philosophic 
sense of azodeéis. And if dvvapews means God’s power, zvev- 
patos will mean His Spirit, the Holy Spirit. The article is 
omitted as in v. 13 (cf. Gal. v. 16 and Phil. ii. 1 with 2 Cor. 
xiil. 13). See Ellicott ad Joc. The genitives are either sub- 
jective, ‘demonstration proceeding from and wrought by the 
Spirit and power of God,’ or qualifying, ‘demonstration con- 
sisting in the spirit and power of God,’ as distinct from per- 
suasion produced by mere cleverness. The sense of zvevparos 
is well given by Theophylact: dppyjry tut tpdrw riotw éveroie 
Tots axovovow. For the general sense see 1 Thess. i. 5 and 
ii. 13; ‘our Gospel came not in word only, but also in power 
and in the Holy Spirit’; and ‘ye accepted it not as the word 
of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also 

*In papyri, dmédeés is used of official evidence or proof. Bachmann 
quotes ; dwédeéiv Sods Tod érlaracbat ieparixa ypappara (Tebt. Pap. ii. 291, 
41). 

3 


— 


34 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS {II. 4-6 


worketh in you that believe.’ St Paul’s appeal is to the strong 
conviction and deep practical power of the Gospel. Not that 
strong conviction is incompatible with error: there is such 
a thing as évepye(a mAdvys, causing men to believe what is false 
(2 Thess. ii. 11); but the false cofia engenders no depth of 
conviction. Lightfoot quotes Longinus, who describes St Paul 
as mpOtov .. . Tpoiorapevov doypatos dvarodeixrov — meaning 
philosophic proof, whereas St Paul is asserting a proof different 
in kind. ‘It was moral, not verbal [nor scientific] demonstra- 
tion at which he aimed.” This epistle is proof of that. 

avOpwrivns (NCA CLP, Copt. AV.) before codias is rejected by all 

editors. 

5. tva. This expresses, either the purpose of God, in so 
ordering the Apostle’s preaching (Theodoret), or that of the 
Apostle himself. The latter suits the éxpwa of v. 2; but the 
former best matches the thought of v. 4, and may be preferred 
(Meyer, Ellicott). The verse is co-ordinate with i. 31, but 
rises to a higher plane, for ziorts is more intimately Christian 
than the xavynous of the O.T. quotation. 

py év copia dvOpdrwy. The preposition marks the medium 
or sphere in which faith has its root: cf. év rovrw micrevopev 
(John xvi. 30). We often express the same idea by ‘depend 
on’ rather than by ‘rooted in’; ‘that your faith may not 


, depend upon wisdom of men, but upon power of God.’ What 


depends upon a clever argument is at the mercy of a cleverer 
argument. Faith, which is at its root personal trust, springs 
from the vital contact of human personality with divine. Its 


affirmations are no mere abstract statements, but comprise the 


experience of personal deliverance ; oida yap © weriarevxa (2 Tim. 
i. 12). Here the negative statement is emphasized. 


(ii.) IZ. 6-III. 4. The True Wisdom. 
Il. 6-13. Zhe True Wisdom described. 


To mature Christians we Apostles preach the Divine 
Wisdom, which God has revealed to us by His Spirit. 


®Not that as preachers of the Gospel we ignore wisdom: 
when we are among those whose faith is ripe, we impart it. 
But it is not a wisdom that is possessed by this age; no, 
nor yet by the leaders of this age, whose influence is destined 
soon to decline. ‘On the contrary, what we impart is the 
Wisdom of God, a mystery hitherto kept secret, which God 
ordained from before all time for our eternal salvation. &% Of 


II. 6] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 35 


this wisdom no one of the leaders of this age has ever acquired 
knowledge, for if any had done so, they would never have 
crucified the Lord whose essential attribute is glory. But, 
so far from any of them knowing this wisdom, what stands 
written in Scripture is exactly true about them, Things 
which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered 
not into the heart of man,—whatsoever things God prepared 
for them that love Him. But to us, who are preachers of 
His Gospel, God has unveiled these mysteries through the 
operation of His Spirit; for His Spirit can explore all things, 
even the deep mysteries of the Divine Nature and Will. 1!We 
can understand this a little from our own experience. What 
human being knows the inmost thoughts of a man, except 
the man’s own spirit within him? Just so no one has attained 
to knowledge of the inmost thoughts of God, except God’s own 
Spirit. 12Yet what we received was not the spirit which 
animates and guides the non-Christian world, but its opposite, 
the Spirit which proceeds from God, given to us that we may 
appreciate the benefits lavished upon us by God. } And what 
He has revealed to us we teach, not in choice words taught 
by the rhetoric of the schools, but in words taught by the 
Spirit, matching spiritual truth with spiritual language. 


6. Lopiav Sé Aadodpev. The germ of the following passage is 
in i. 24, 30: Christ crucified is to the xAyroé the wisdom of 
God. This is the guiding thought to be borne in mind in 
discussing St Paul’s conception of the true wisdom.* There 
are two points respecting AaAotpev. Firstly, St Paul includes 
others with himself, not only his immediate fellow-workers, 
but the Apostolic body as a whole (xv. 11). Secondly, the 
verb means simply ‘utter’: it must not be pressed to denote 
a kind of utterance distinct from Adyos and xypvypa (v. 4), 
such as private conversation. 

év tois tedeiots. It is just possible that there is here an 
allusion to the technical language of mystical imitation; but, 
if so, it is quite subordinate. By réAeoe St Paul means the 
mature or full-grown Christians, as contrasted with vimor (iii. 1). + 
The word is used again xiv. 20; Phil. iii, 15; Eph. iv. 13. 
Those who had attained to the fulness of Christian experience 


* See ch. x. in Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, pp. 356f., and note the 
emphatic position of codiav. 

+ This sense is frequent in papyri and elsewhere, ‘Initiated’ would be 
TereNeo uevol, 


36 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ II. 6 


would know that his teaching was really philosophy of the 
highest kind. The év means, not merely ‘in the opinion of,’ 
but literally ‘among,’ 7” consessu ; ‘in such a circle’ the Apostle 
utters true wisdom. 

It is quite clear that St Paul distinguishes two classes of 
hearers, and that both of them are distinct from the dvoAAvpevoe 
of i. 18, or the Jews and Greeks of i. 22, 23. On the one 
hand, there are the réAeor, whom he calls lower down zvevpa- 
tixol (v. 13-ill. 1); on the other hand, there is the anomalous 
class of odpxuwo, who are babes in Christ. Ideally, all Chris- 
tians, as such, are mvevparixol (xil. 31; Gal. ill. 2, 5; Rom. 
viii. 9, 15, 26). But practically, many Christians need to be 
treated as (as, iii. 1), and to all intents are, odpxwo, vireo, 
Wuxixol (v. 14), even capxcxol (iii. 3). The work of the Apostle 
has as its aim the raising of all such imperfect Christians to 
the normal and ideal standard; wa rapacrynowpev ravta avOpw- 
mov TéAeov ev Xpiotd (Col. i. 28, where see Lightfoot). St Paul’s 
thought, therefore, seems to be radically different from that 
which is ascribed to Pythagoras, who is said to have divided 
his disciples into réAeoc and vymo. It is certainly different 
from that of the Gnostics, who erected a strong barrier between 
the initiated (réAeor) and the average Christians (Wvyexo/). 
There are clear traces of this Gnostic distinction between 
esoteric and exoteric Christians in the school of Alexandria 
(Eus. .£. v. xi.), and a residual distinction survives in the 
ecclesiastical instinct of later times (Ritschl, Fides Jmplicita). 
The vital difference is this: St Paul, with all true teachers, 
recognizes the principle of gradations. He does not expect 
the beginner at once to equal the Christian of ripe experience ; 
nor does he expect the Gospel to level all the innumerable 
diversities of mental and moral capacity (viii. 7, xii. 12-27; 
Rom. xiv.). But, although gradations of classes among Christians 
must be allowed, there must be no differences of caste. The 
‘wisdom’ is open to all; and all, in their several ways, are 
capable of it, and are to be trained to receive it. So far as 
the Church, in any region or in any age, is content to leave 
any class in permanent nonage, reserving spiritual understanding 
for any caste, learned, or official, or other,—so far the Apostolic 
charge has been left unfulfilled and the Apostolic ideal has 
been abandoned. 

The 4€ is explanatory and corrective; ‘Now by wisdom I 
mean, not,’ etc. 

TOU al@vos ToUTou. See on i. 20. 

ov8€ tay dpxdvtw. It is quite evident from v. 8 that the 
dpxovres are those who took part in the Crucifixion of the Lord 
of Glory. They, therefore, primarily include the rulers of the 


II. 6,7] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 37 


Jews. Peter says, cat viv, ddeA ot, otda dre kara dyvovav érpdtare, 
@omrep Kal of apxovres duov (Acts iii. 17); and if St Luke is 
responsible for the form in which this speech is reported, the 
words may be regarded as the earliest commentary on our 
passage. But Pilate also was a party to the crime: and ‘the 
rulers of this dispensation’ includes all, as well ecclesiastical 
as civil. 

Some Fathers and early writers, from Marcion (Tert. arc. 
v. 6) downwards, understand the dpxovres tod aidvos tovrov to 
mean demons: cf. Koopoxpatopas Tov oKdTovs TOD aidvos TovToU 
(Eph. vi. 12). Perhaps this idea exists already in Ignatius; 
eAafev Tov dpxovta Tov ai@vos TovTov . . . 6 Odvaros Tod Kvpiov. 
See Thackeray, Zhe Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish 
Thought, pp. 156f., 230n. But this interpretation is wholly 
incompatible with v. 8, as also is the very perverse suggestion 
of Schmiedel that St Paul refers to Azge/s, whose rule over 
certain departments in God’s government of the world belongs 
only to this dispensation, and ceases with it (xatapyoujévwr), 
and who are unable to see into the mysteries of redemption 
(Gal. ili. 19; 1 Pet. i, 12). See Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, p. 5. 

TOv kaTapyoupevwy. See oni. 28. The force of the present 
tense is ‘axiomatic.’ These rulers and their function belong to 
the sphere of rpdéckaipa (vii. 31 ; 2 Cor. iv. 18), and are destined 
to vanish in the dawn of the Kingdom of God. So far as the 
Kingdom is come, they are gone. Yet they have their place 
and function in relation to the world in which we have our 
present station and duties (vii. 20, 24, 31), until all ‘ pass away into 
nothingness.’ 


7. GAG Aadodpev. The verb is repeated for emphasis with 
the fully adversative ad\Ad (Rom. viii. 15; Phil. iv. 17); ‘But 
what we do utter is,’ etc. 

cod godiav. The @eov is very emphatic, as the context 
demands, and nearly every uncial has the words in this order. 
To read codiav @cod (L) mars the sense. 

év puotypiw. We may connect this with Aadoduev, to charac- 
terize the manner of communication, as we say, ‘to speak iz a 
whisper,’ or to characterize its effect—‘ while declaring a mystery.’ 
Or we may connect with co¢iav: and this is better, in spite of 
the absence of ryv before év pvornpiw (see Lightfoot on 1 Thess. 
i. 1). The ‘wisdom’ is év pvornpiw, because it has been for 
so long a secret, although now made known to all who can 
receive it, the dycor (Col. i. 26) and KAnrol. 

Assuming that poaprvpiov is the right reading in v. 1, we 
have here almost the earliest use of pvorjpiov in N.T. (2 Thess. 
il. 7 is the earliest). See J. A. Robinson, Zphesians, pp. 234-240, 


38 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ II. ef 


for a full discussion of the use of the word in N.T., also Westcott, 
Ephesians, pp. 180-182. 

thy daoxexpuppéeryy. For the sense see Eph. iil. 5 ; Col. i. 26; 
Rom. xvi. 25. The words are explanatory of év pvornptw. The 
wisdom of God had been hidden even from prophets and 
saints (Luke x. 24), until the fulness of time: now it is made 
manifest. But it remains hidden from those who are not pre- 
pared to receive it; eg. from Jews (2 Cor. iii. 14) and the 
dro\Avpevor generally (2 Cor. iv. 3-6). This contrast is followed 
up in vv. 8-16. 

iv tmpowpicey 6 Oeds. To be taken directly with the words 
that follow, without supplying doxaAvWae or any similar link. 
The ‘wisdom’ is ‘Christ crucified’ (i. 18-24), fore-ordained by 
God (Acts iv. 28; Eph. iii, 11) for the salvation of men. It was 
no afterthought or change of plan, as Theodoret remarks, but was 
fore-ordained dvwOev kat é€ dpyjs. 

eis Sdgav pay. Our efernal glory, or complete salvation 
(2 Cor. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 18, 21, etc.). From meaning ‘ opinion,’ 
and hence ‘public repute,’ ‘ praise,’ or ‘honour,’ d0€a acquires in 
many passages the peculiarly Biblical sense of ‘splendour,’ 
‘brightness,’ ‘glory.’ This ‘ glory’ is used sometimes of physical 
splendour, sometimes of special ‘ excellence’ and ‘ pre-eminency’ ; 
or again of ‘majesty,’ denoting the unique glory of God, the 
sum-total either of His incommunicable attributes, or of those 
which belong to Christ. In reference to Christ, the glory may 
be either that of His pre-incarnate existence in the Godhead, 
or of His exaltation through Death and Resurrection, at God’s 
right hand. 

It is on this sense of the word that is based its eschatological 
sense, denoting the final state of the redeemed. Excepting 
Heb. ii. 10 and 1 Pet. v. 1, this eschatological sense is almost 
peculiar to St Paul and is characteristic of him (xv. 43; 1 Thess. 
ii. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 1449 poms we 23 Phil. a. gs, ete pau 
state of the redeemed, closely corresponding to ‘the Kingdom 
of God,’ is called ‘the glory of God,’ because as God’s adopted 
sons they share in the glory of the exalted Christ, which consists 
in fellowship with God. This ‘glory’ may be said to be enjoyed 
in this life in so far as we are partakers of the Spirit who is the 
‘earnest’ (dppaBwy) of our full inheritance (2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5; 
Eph. i. 14; cf. Rom. viii. 23). But the eschatological sense is 
primary and determinant in the class of passages to which the 
present text belongs, and this fact is of importance. 

What is the wisdom of which the Apostle is speaking? Does 
he mean a special and esoteric doctrine reserved for a select 
body of the initiated (réAevor)? Or does he mean the Gospel, 
‘the word of the Cross,’ as it is apprehended, not by babes in 


i. 7; 8 THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 39 


Christ, but by Christians of full growth? Some weighty con- 
siderations suggest the former view, which is adopted by Clement, 
Origen, Meyer, and others ; especially the clear distinction made 
in ili, 1, 2 between the ydAa and the Bpédpya, coupled with the 
right meaning of év in v. 6. On the other hand, the frequent 
assertions (i. 18, 24, 30) that Christ crucified is the Power and 
Wisdom of God, coupled with the fact that this Wisdom was 
‘fore-ordained for our salvation’ (see also o@oau in i. 21), seem 
to demand the equation of the wisdom uttered by the Apostle 
with the prwpia rod Kypvyparos, and the equation of @cod codiav 
in ii. 7 with @ceod codiav in i. 24 (cf. i. 30). These considera- 
tions seem to be decisive. With Heinrici, Edwards, and others, 
we conclude that St Paul’s ‘wisdom’ is the Gospel, simply. 
With this Chrysostom agrees; cod/av A€yer TO Kypvypa Kal Tov 
TpOTov THS TwTYpLas, TO va TOV GTa’pov GwOAvat: TereELovs 5é Tos 
TETLOTEVKOTAS. 

But the yda\a and the fpopa of iii. 2, and the distinction 
between réAcor and vy évy Xpiord, must be satisfied. The 
téXeot are able to follow the ‘unsearchable riches of Christ’ and 
‘manifold wisdom of God’ (Eph. iii. 8, 10) into regions of 
spiritual insight, and into questions of practical import, to which 
vymiot Cannot at present rise. But they may rise, and with 
proper nurture and experience will rise. There is no bar to 
their progress. 

The ‘wisdom of God,’ therefore, comprises primarily Christ 
and Him crucified ; the preparation for Christ as regards Jew and 
Gentile ; the great mystery of the call of the Gentiles and the ap- 
parent rejection of the Jews; the justification of man and the 
principles of the Christian life ; and (the thought dominant in the 
immediate context) the consummation of Christ’s work in the d0éa 
pov. The Epistle to the Romans, which is an unfolding of the 
thought of 1 Cor. i. 24-31, is St Paul’s completest utterance of this 
wisdom. It is Bpdpa, while our Epistle is occupied with things 
answering to yada, although we see how the latter naturally leads 
on into the range of deeper problems (xiii., xv.). But there is 
no thought here, or in Romans, or anywhere in St Paul’s writings, 
of a disciplina arcani or body of esoteric doctrine. The Bpapa 
is meant for all, and all are expected to grow into fitness for it 
(see Lightfoot on Col. i. 26 f.) ; and the form of the Gospel (ii. 2) 
contains the whole of it in germ. 


8. fv oddeis .. . Eyvwxev. The nv must refer to codiay, ‘ which 
wisdom none of the rulers of this world hath discerned.’ 

ei ydép. Parenthetical confirmation of the previous statement. 
‘Had they discerned, as they did not, they would not have cruci- 
fied, as they did.’ It is manifest from this that the dpyxovres are 


40 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 8,9 


neither demons nor angels, but the rulers who took part in 
crucifying the Christ. 

tov Kuptoy tis Bo€is. Cf. Jas. ii. 1; Eph. i. 17; Acts vii. 2; 
also Ps. xxiv. 7; Heb. ix. 5. The genitive is qualifying, but the 
attributive force is strongly emphatic, bringing out the contrast 
between the indignity of the Cross (Heb. xii. 2) and the majesty 
of the Victim (Luke xxii. 69, xxiii. 43).* 


9. d\\d. ‘On the contrary (so far from any, even among the 
great ones of this world, knowing this wisdom, the event was) 
just as it stands written.’ There is no difficulty in understanding 
yéyovev, or some such word, with xaos yéypamrat. But the con- 
struction can be explained otherwise, and perhaps better. See 
below, and on i. 19. 

& dpOadpos ovx eiSev. The relative is co-ordinate with 7 in 
v. 8, refers to oodia, and therefore is zxdtrectly governed by 
Aadodpev in v. 7 (so Heinrici, Meyer, Schmiedel). It might (so 
Evans) be governed by amexddvwev, if we read piv 6€ and take 
v.10 as an apodosis. But this is awkward, especially as a4 does 
not precede xaOws yéyparra. The only grammatical irregularity 
which it is necessary to acknowledge is that a serves first as an 
accusative governed by e@dev and jxovcer, then as nominative to 
dveByn, and once more in apposition to 6ea (or a) in the accus- 
ative. Such an anacoluthon is not at all violent. 

émt kapdiav ... odk dvéBy. Cf. Acts vii. 23; Isa. Ixv. 17; 
Jer. iii. 16, etc. ‘Heart’ in the Bible includes the mind, as 
here, Rom. i. 21, x. 6, etc. 

doa. In richness and scale they exceed sense and thought 
(John xiv. 2). 

HToipacev. Here only does St Paul use the verb of God. 
When it is so used, it refers to the blessings of fixa/ glory, with 
(Luke ii. 31) or without (Matt. xx. 23, xxv. 34; Mark x. 40; Heb. 
xi. 16) including present grace; or else to the miseries of final 
punishment (Matt. xxv. 41). See note on doga, v. 7. The ana- 
logy of N.T. language, and the dominant thought of the context 
here, compel us to find the primary reference in the consumma- 
tion of final blessedness. See Aug. De catech. rud. 27; Const. 
Apost. VII. xxxii. 2; with Irenaeus, Cyprian, Clement of Alex- 
andria and Origen. This does not exclude, but rather carries 
with it, the thought of ‘present insight into Divine things’ 
(Edwards). See on v. 10, and last note on z. 7. 


* Crux servorum supplicium. Eo Dominum gloriae affecerunt (Beng.). 
‘The levity of philosophers in rejecting the cross was only surpassed by 
the stupidity of poiiticians in inflicting it” (Findlay). The placing of 1.«.7. 
doé%s between ov dv and the verb throws emphasis on the words ; ‘ they would 
never have crucified ¢he Lord of Glory’: cf. Heb. iv. 8, viii. 7 (Abbott, Johan- 
nine Gr. 2566). 


II. 9} THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 4I 


Tots dyam@ow attév. See Rom. viii. 28-30. Clement of 
Rome (Cor. 34), in quoting this passage, restores rots Sropévovew 
from Isa. Ixiv. 4 in place of rots dyar@ow. This seems to show 
that he regards the xa@ws yéyparra: as introducing a quotation 
from Isaiah. 

We ought possibly to read 80a jrolfuacey with A B C, Clem-Rom. 
But 4 jroluacev is strongly supported (N DEF GLP, Clem-Alex. Orig. 
Polyc-Mart.). Vulg. has guae with defgr, 

The much debated question of the source of St Paul’s quota- 
tion must be solved within the limits imposed by his use of xaOas 
yéypartat, See on i. 19 and 31. The Apostle unquestionably 
intends to quote Canonical Scripture. Either, then, he actually 
does so, or he unintentionally (Meyer) slips into a citation from 
some other source. ‘The only passages of the O.T. which come 
into consideration are three from Isaiah. (1) Ixiv. 4, dad rod 
aidvos ovk WKOVTapmey ovde of 6POarpot puadv etdov Wcdy 
wAxv Gov Kal TaEpya Gov, & Tojoers Tols tropévovew eeov (Heb. 
‘From eternity they have not heard, they have not hearkened, 
neither hath eye seen, a God save Thee, who shall do gloriously 
for him that awaiteth Him’). (2) Ixv. 17, kal od pi) Ew EXOD 
aitav éxi tiv kapdiav (observe the context). Also (3) lii. 15, 
as quoted Rom. xv. 21, a passage very slightly to the purpose. 
The first of these three passages is the one that is nearest to the 
present quotation. Its general sense is, ‘The only living God, 
who, from the beginning of the world, has proved Himself to be 
such by helping all who trust in His mercy, is Jehovah’; and it 
must be admitted that, although germane, it is not very close to 
St Paul’s meaning here. But we must remember that St Paul 
quotes with great freedom, often compounding different passages 
and altering words to suit his purpose. Consider the quotations 
in i. 19, 20, 31, and in Rom. ix. 27, 29, and especially in Rom. 
ix. 31, x. 6, 8, 15. Freedom of quotation is a vera causa; and 
if there are degrees of freedom, an extreme point will be found 
somewhere. With the possible exception of the doubtful case 
in Eph. vy. 14, it is probable that we reach an extreme point here. 
This view is confirmed by the fact that Clement of Rome, in the 
earliest extant quotation from our present passage, goes back to 
the LXX of Isa. lxiv. 4, which is evidence that he regarded that 
to be the source of St Paul’s quotation. At the very least, it 
proves that Clement felt that there was resemblance between 
1 Cor. ii. 9 and Isa. Ixiv. 4. 

Of other solutions, the most popular has been that of Origen 
(tn Matt. xxvii. 9); in nullo regulari libro hoc positum invenitur, 
nisi in Secretis Eliae Prophetae. Origen was followed by others, 
but was warmly contradicted by Jerome (¢# Zsai. Ixiv. 4: see also 
frol. in Gen. ix. and £/. lvii. [ci.] 7), who nevertheless allows 


42 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [1I. 9 


that the passage occurs not only in the Apocalypse of Elias, but 
also in the Ascension of Esaias. This, however, by no means 
proves that the Apostle quotes from either book ; for the writers 
of those books may both of them be quoting from him. Indeed, 
it is fairly certain that this is true of the Apocalypse of Elias; 
unless we reject the testimony of Epiphanius (//aez. xlii.), who 
says that this Apocalypse also contains the passage in Eph. v. 14, 
which (if St Paul quotes it without adaptation) is certainly from 
a Christian source. And there is no good reason for doubting 
the statement of Epiphanius. The Apocalypse of Elias, if it 
existed at all before St Paul’s time, would be sure to be edited 
by Christian copyists, who, as in the case of many other apoca- 
lyptic writings, inserted quotations from N.T. books, especially 
from passages like the present one. The Ascension of Esaias, 
as quoted by Epiphanius (Ixvii. 3), was certainly Christianized, 
for it contained allusions to the Holy Trinity. It is probably 
identical with the Ascension and Vision of Isaiah, published by 
Laurence in an Ethiopic, and by Gieseler in a Latin, version. 
The latter (xi. 34) contains our passage, and was doubtless the 
one known to Jerome; the Ethiopic, though Christian, does not 
contain it. See Tisserant, Ascension d’saie, p. 211. 

On the whole, therefore, we have decisive ground for regard- 
ing our passage as the source whence these Christian or Chris- 
tianized apocrypha derived their quotation, and not vice versa. 
Still more strongly does this hold good of the paradox of “ over- 
sanguine liturgiologists” (Lightfoot), who would see in our 
passage a quotation from the Liturgy of St James, a document 
of the Gentile Church of Aelia far later than Hadrian, and full 
of quotations from the N.T.* 

Resch, also over-sanguine, claims the passage for his col- 
lection of Agvapha, or lost Sayings of our Lord, but on no 
grounds which call for discussion here. 

Without, therefore, denying that St Paul, like other N.T. 
writers, might quote a non-canonical book, we conclude with 
Clement of Rome and Jerome, that he meant to quote, and 
actually does quote—very freely and with reminiscence of lxv. 17 
—from Isa. lxiv. 4. He may, as Origen saw, be quoting from 
a lost Greek version which was textually nearer to our passage 
than the Septuagint is, but such an hypothesis is at best only a 
guess, and, in view of St Paul’s habitual freedom, it is not a very 
helpful guess. 

The above view, which is substantially that of the majority of 
modern commentators, including Ellicott, Edwards, and Lightfoot 

* Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome, 1. pp. 389 f., 11. pp. 106 f. ; Hammond, 


Liturgies Eastern and Western, p. x. Neither Origen nor Jerome know of 
any liturgical source. 


II. 9, 10] THE FALSE WISDOM AND° THE TRUE 43 


(to whose note this discussion has special obligations) is rejected 
by Meyer-Heinr., Schmiedel, and some others, who think that St 
Paul, perhaps fer tacuriam, quotes one of the apocryphal writings 
referred to above. It has been shown already that this hypo- 
thesis is untenable. For further discussion, see Lightfoot, 
S. Clement of Rome, 1. p. 390, and on Clem. Rom. Cor. 34; 
Resch, Agrapha, pp. 102, 154, 281; Thackeray, St Paul and 
Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 240f. On the seemingly 
hostile reference of Hegesippus to this verse, see Lightfoot’s 
last note 77 doc. 

These two verses (9, 10) give a far higher idea of the future 
revelation than is found in Jewish apocalyptic writings, which 
deal rather with marvels than with the unveiling of spiritual 
truth. See Hastings, DB. iv. pp. 186, 187; Schurer, /.P., 11. 
ili. pp. 129-132; Lacy. Bib. i. 210. 


10. pty ydp. Reason why we can utter things hidden from 
eye, ear, and mind of man: ‘ Because to ws God, through the 
Spirit, unveiled them,’ or, ‘For to ws they were revealed by God 
through the Spirit.” The tv follows hard upon and interprets 
Tois dyaT@ow airov, just as yuty On Tots cwlopevors (i. 18): cf. 
qptv in i. 30 and 7por in ii. 7. The pty is in emphatic contrast 
to ‘the rulers of this world’ who do not know (z. 8). God 
reveals His glory, through His Spirit, to those for whom it is 
prepared. See note on v. 7; also Eph. i. 14, 17; 2 Cor. i. 22. 

If d¢ be read instead of ydp, we must either adopt the awkward 
construction of &@ 6p6adp0s x.7.X. advocated by Evans and rejected 
above, or else, with Ellicott, make d€ introduce a second and 
supplementary contrast (co-ordinate with, but more general than, 
that introduced by ddAd in v. 9g) to the ignorance of the 
apxovres in v. 8. On the whole, the “latent inferiority” of the 
reading 6¢ is fairly clear. 

dmexddupev. The aorist points to a definite time when the 
revelation took place, viz. to the entry of the Gospel into the 
world.* Compare the aorists in Col. i. 26; Eph. iii. 5. 

Toyap mvedua. Explanatory of da rod rvevpartos. The owl6- 
uevor and the aya@vres Tov @eov possess the Spirit, who has, and 
gives access to, the secrets of God. 

épouva. The Alexandrian form of épevva (T.R.). The word 
does not here mean ‘searcheth in order to know,’ any more than 
it means this when it is said that God searches the heart of man 
(Rom. viii. 27; Rev. ii. 23; Ps. cxxxix. 1). It expresses “the 

* Is it true that ‘‘revelation is distinguished from ordinary spiritual in- 
fluences by its sddenness”? May there not be a gradual unveiling? Revela- 
tion implies that, without special aid from God, the truth in question would 


not have been discovered. Human ability and research would not have 
sufficed. 


44 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [1I. 10, 11 


activity of divine knowledge” (Edwards) ; or rather, it expresses 
the activity of the Spirit in throwing His light upon the deep 
things of God, for those in whom He dwells. Scrutatur omnia, 
non quia nescit, ut inveniat, sed quia nihil relinguit quod nesciat 
(Atto). For the form see Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch., 
p. 81. 
7a Bdbn. Cf.’ Babos rrovrov Kai copias kai yvwocews Meod 
(Rom. xi. 33), and contrast ra Babéa rod Zarava, ws A€yovow (Rev. 
ii, 24).* 
hiv yap (Band several cursives, Sah. Copt., Clem-Alex. Bas.) seems to 
be preferable to myiv 6é (NACDEFGLP, Vulg. Syrr. Arm, Acth., 
Orig.), but the external evidence for the latter is very strong. Certainly 
dmexdduper 6 Ocds (NABCDEFGP, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is 


preferable to 6 Oeds am. (L, Sah. Orig.). After rvetiuaros, 8? DEFGL, 
Vulg. Syrr. Sah. Arm. Aeth. AV. add airod, N* A BC, Copt. RV. omit. 


1l. tis yap ot8ev dvOpdmwv. This verse, taken as a whole, 
confirms the second clause of v. 10, and thereby further explains 
the words da rod rvevparos. The words avOpizwv and avOperov, 
repeated, are emphatic, the argument being @ minori ad majus. 
Even a human being has within him secrets of his own, which 
no human being whatever can penetrate, but only his own spirit. 
How much more is this true of God! ‘The language here 
recalls Prov. xx. 27, das Kupiov von avOpirwv, ds épavva tapeia 
kotA‘as. Cf. Jer. xvii. 9g, 10. The question does not mean that 
nothing about God can be known; it means that what is known 
is known through His Spirit (v. ro). 

ta Tod dvOpuiou. The personal memories, reflexions, motives, 
etc., of any individual human being; all the thoughts of which 
he is conscious (iv. 4). 

TO veda Tod dvOp. Td €v adt@. The word zvedpa is here used, 
as in v. 5, vii. 34; 2 Cor. vii. 1; 1 Thess. v. 23, in the purely 
psychological sense, to denote an element in the natural con- 
stitution of every human being. This sense, if we carefully 
separate all passages where it may stand for the spirit of man as 
touched by the Spirit of God, is not very frequent in Paul. See 
below on v. 14 for the relation of zvedua to Yuy7. 

oUtws kai k.t.A. It is here that the whole weight of the state- 
ment lies. 

éyvwxev. This seems to be purposely substituted for the 
weaker and more general ofdev. For the contrast between the 
two see 2 Cor. v. 16; 1 John ii. 29. “The éyvwxey seems to 
place ra rod @eod a degree more out of reach than oldev does ra 
Tod avOpHrov” (Lightfoot, whose note, with its illustrations from 
1 John, should be consulted). This passage is a /ocus classicus 


* Clem. Rom. (Cor. 40) has mpodjA\wy ody juiv bvTwv TolTwy, Kat éyKEKu- 
ores els TA BAOn Tijs Delas ywdoeuws. 


II. 11,12] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 45 


for the Divinity, as Rom. viii. 26, 27 is for the Personality, of the 
Holy Spirit. 

et py. ‘But only,’ as in Gal. i. 7, and (probably) i. 19; 
cf. ii. 16. 

76 Tvedpa Tod Geod. St Paul does not add 76 év airé, which 
would have suggested a closer analogy between the relation of 
man’s spirit to man and that of God’s Spirit to God than the 
argument requires, and than the Apostle would hold to exist. 


A 17, Ath. Cyr-Alex. omit dv@pérwr. F G omit the second roi dvApu- 
mov. FG have éyvw, while L has oldev, for éyywxey (NABCDEP, 
Vulg. cognovit). 


12. ypets 8€. See on ypyiv in v. 10: ‘we Christians.’ 

ov T6 wveOpa Tod Kdopou .. . addd. An interjected negative 
clause, added to give more force to the positive statement that 
follows, as in Rom. viii. 15. What does St Paul mean by ‘the 
spirit of the world’? 

(1) Meyer, Evans, Edwards, and others understand it of 
Satan, or the spirit of Satan, the xécpos being “a system of 
organized evil, with its own principles and its own laws” (Evans) : 
fee Hiphi i. 2, vi ri; John xi 31; 1 John iv. wigs and 
possibly 2 Cor. iv. 4. But this goes beyond the requirements of 
the passage: indeed, it seems to go beyond the analogy of N.T. 
language, in which xécpos has not fer se a bad sense. Nor is 
‘the wisdom of the world’ Satanical. It is human, not divine ; 
but it is evil only in so far as ‘the flesh’ is sinful: ¢#.¢. it is not 
inherently evil, but only when ruled by sin, instead of being 
subjected to the Spirit. See Gifford’s discussion of the subject 
in his Comm. on Romans, Vii. 15. 

(2) Heinrici, Lightfoot, and others understand of the temper 
of the world, ‘the spirit of human wisdom, of the world as 
alienated from God”: non sumus instituti sapientia mundi (Est.). 
On this view it is practically identical with the dvOpwxivy codia 
of v. 13, and homogeneous with the dpdvynpa tis capkos of Rom. 
viii. 6, 7: indeed, it may be said to be identical with it in 
substance, though not in aspect. In both places in this verse, 
therefore, zvedya would be impersonal, and a/mos¢ attributive, as 
in Rom. vili. 15; but there the absence of the article makes a 
difference. Compare the zvedpua erepov 6 oix éAdBere in 2 Cor. 
xi. 4. On the whole, this second explanation of ‘the spirit of 
the world’ seems to be the better. 

€kdBopev. Like azexddv ev (v. 10), this aorist refers to a 
definite time when the gift was received. ‘St Paul regards the 
gift as ideally summed up when he and they were ideally included 
in the Christian Church, though it is true that the Spirit is 
received constantly” (Lightfoot), Cf. xii. 13. 


46 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (II. 12, 13 


76 mvedpa To €x Tod Ocov. The gift rather than the Person of 
the Spirit, although here, as not infrequently in Paul, the dis- 
tinction between the Personal Spirit of God (v. 11), dwelling in 
man (Rom. viii. 11), and the spirit (in the sense of the higher 
element of man’s nature), inhabited and quickened by the Holy 
Spirit, is subtle and difficult to fix with accuracy. The Person is 
in the gift, and the activity of the recipient is the work of the 
Divine Indweller. 

iva eiSGpev. This is the result to which vv. 10-12 lead up. 
The words reproduce, under a different aspect, the thought in 
Huiv arexdAvev 6 Weos, and give the foundation for v. 13, & Kat 
AaXotpev. 

Ta... xaptobévra fjpiv. The same blessings appear suc- 
cessively as d0éav jpav (v. 7), 60a Hroipacev x.7.A. (v. 9), and ra 
xapioGevra (v. 12). The last perhaps includes “a little more of 
present reference” (Ellicott). The connexion of thought in the 
passage may be shown by treating vv. 11 and 12 as expanding 
the thought of v. ro into a kind of syllogism ;—major premiss, 
None knows the things of God, but only the Spirit of God; 
minor premiss, We received the Spirit which is of God; con- 
clusion, So that we know what is given us by God. The 
possession of the gift of the Spirit of God is a sort of middle 
term which enables the Apostle to claim the power to know, and 
to utter, the deep things of God. 


After roi xécyov, D E F G, Vulg. Copt. Arm. add rovrou. NABCLP, 
Syrr. Aeth, omit. 


13. & kat NKadodpev. This is the dominant verb of the whole 
passage (vv. 6, 7: see notes on 7, v. 8, ad and 60a, v. 9). The 
kai emphasizes the justification, furnished by the preceding 
verses, for the claim made; ‘Which are the very things that we 
do utter.’ The present passage is the personal application of 
the foregoing, as vv. 1-5 are of i. 18-31. 

Si8axtois dvOpwrivns aopias. ‘Taught by man’s wisdom.’ 
We have similar genitives in John vi. 45, d:daxrot @cod, and in 
Matt. xxv. 34, etAoynpévor tod watpds. In class. Grk. the con- 
struction is found only in poets; xetvys didaxta (Soph. Lect. 343), 
didaxtais avOpwruwv dperats (Pind. O/. ix. 152). Cf. i. 17. 

SiSaktots mvevpatos. See on v. 4, where, as here and 1 Thess. 
i. 5, 7vevpa has no article. The Apostle is not claiming verbal 
inspiration ; but verba rem sequuntur (Wetstein). Cf. Luke xxi. 
15; Jer.i.9. Sapcentia est scaturigo sermonum (Beng.). Bentley, 
Kuenen, etc. conjecture év adiddxrois tvevparos. 

TVEULATLKOLS TrYEULaTLKa auvKpivovtes. ‘Two questions arise 
here, on the answer to which the interpretation of the words 
depends,—the gender of wvevpatixots, and the meaning of ow- 


i, 13} THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 47 


xpivew. The latter is used by St Paul only here and 2 Cor. x. 12, 
where it means ‘to compare.’ This is a late use, frequent from 
Aristotle onwards, but out of place here, although adopted in 
both AV. and RV. text. Its classical meaning is ‘to join 
fitly,’ ‘compound,’ ‘combine’ (RV. marg.). In the LXX it has 
the meaning ‘to interpret,’ but only in the case of dreams 
feu x 0; £0.) 22; "xi. (r2,; 155) Pudg. vill 153° Dan. v. 12, 
vii. 15, 16). We have, therefore, the following possibilities to 
consider :— 

(1) Taking rvevparixots as neuter ;—either, 

(a) Combining spiritual things (the words) with spiritual 
things (the subject matter) ; or, 

(8) Interpreting (explaining) spiritual things by spiritual 
things. 

This (8) may be understood in a variety of ways ;— 
Interpreting O.T. types by N.T. doctrines. 
Interpreting spiritual truths by spiritual language. 
Interpreting spiritual truths by spiritual faculties. 

Of these three, the first is very improbable; the third is 
substantially the explanation adopted by Luther; umd richten 
getstliche Sachen geistlich. 

(2) Taking zvevparexots as masculine ;—either, 

(y) Suiting (matching) spiritual matter to spiritual 
hearers ; or, 
(8) Interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual hearers. 

In favour of taking zvevpatixots as neuter may be urged the 
superior epigrammatic point of keeping the same gender for both 
terms, and the naturalness of rvevyaticots being brought into 
close relation with the ovv- in ovvxpivovres. These considera- 
tions are of weight, and the resultant sense is good and relevant, 
whether we adopt (a) or the third form of (8). As Theodore 
of Mopsuestia puts it, dua rév trod mvevpatos drodeiEewv TH TOU 
mvevpatos SibackaXiay mirtovpeba. 

On the other hand, in favour of taking zvevparcxots as mascu- 
line, there is its markedly emphatic position, as if to prepare the 
way for the contrast with Wuxixds which immediately follows, and 
which now becomes the Apostle’s main thought. ‘This considera- 
tion perhaps turns the scale in favour of taking mvevparixots as 
‘spiritual persons.’ Of the two explanations under this head, one 
would unhesitatingly prefer (6), were not the use of ouv«pivew in 
the sense of ‘interpret’ confined elsewhere to the case of dreams. 
This objection is not fatal, but it is enough to leave us in doubt 
whether St Paul had this meaning in his mind. The other 
alternative (y) has the advantage of being a little less remote 
from the Apostle’s only other use of the word. In either case, 
taking wv. as masculine, we have the Apostle coming back “full 


48 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 13, 14 


circle” to the thought of v. 6, év rots reAefors, which now receives 
its necessary justification. 

Before concluding the discussion of the true wisdom, the 
Apostle glances at those who are, and those who are not, fitted 
to receive it. 


After mvetuaros, D? EL P, Aeth, AV, add ayio. NABCD*FG17, 
Vulg. RV. omit. 


II. 14-III. 4. THE SPIRITUAL AND THE ANIMAL 
CHARACTERS, 


Only the spiritual man can receive the true wisdom. 
You Corinthians cannot receive tt, for your dissensions show 
that you are not spiritual. 


14 Now the man whose interests are purely material has no 
mind to receive what the Spirit of God has to impart to him: it 
is all foolishness to him, and he is incapable of understanding it, 
because it requires a spiritual eye to see its true value. 1° But 
the spiritual man sees the true value of everything, yet his own 
true value is seen by no one who is not spiritual like himself. 
16 For what human being ever knew the thoughts of the Lord 
God, so as to be able to instruct and guide Him? But those of 
us who are spiritual do share the thoughts of Christ. 

ii. 1 And I, Brothers, acting on this principle, have not been 
able to treat you as spiritual persons, but as mere creatures of 
flesh and blood, as still only babes in the Christian course. 
27 gave you quite elementary teaching, and not the more solid 
truths of the Gospel, for these ye were not yet strong enough 
to digest. %So far from being so then, not even now are ye 
strong enough, for ye are still mere beginners. For so long as 
jealousy and contention prevail among you, are you not mere 
tyros, behaving no better than the mass of mankind? 4 For 
when one cries, I for my part stand by Paul, and another, I by 
Apollos, are you anything better than men who are still 
uninfluenced by the Spirit of God? 


14. uxixds 8€ dvOpwros. This is in sharpest contrast to 
mvevparikors (7. 13), for Wuyikds means ‘animal’ (animalis homo, 
Vulg.) in the etymological sense, and nearly so in the ordinary 
sense: see xv. 44, 46; Jas. ili. 15; Jude 19 (Yvyicol rrvedpa ovx 


zr. 14, 15] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 49 


éxovres).* The term is not necessarily based upon a supposed 
‘trichotomous’ psychology, as inferred by Apollinaris and others 
from 7o mvetpa Kai 7» Yvxy Kat TO copa in Thess. v. 23 (see 
Lightfoot’s note). It is based rather upon the conception of 
Wuxy as the mere correlative of organic life. Aristotle defines it 
as mpwTn evTeX€xera Gupatos pvaixod dpyavikod. In man, this 
comprises zvedua in the merely psychological sense (note on 
v. 11), but not necessarily in the sense referred to above (note 
awe re). see, however, v.53 Phil. 1. 27> Epn. vip 19 ~ Col 
lil. 23; 1 Pet. iv. 6. In Luke i. 46, yvyy and wvedpa seem to be 
synonymous. The yyy ranges with vods (Rom. vii. 23, 35; 
Col. ii. 18), in one sense contrasted with ocapé, but like capé in 
its inability to rise to practical godliness, unless aided by the 
mvevua. We may say that wvyx7 is the ‘energy’ or correlative 
of oapé. 

Although, therefore, Yvx7 is not used in N.T. in a bad sense, 
to distinguish the animal from the spiritual principle in the 
human soul, yet Wvyikes is used of a man whose motives do not 
rise above the level of merely human needs and aspirations. 
The yuxexds is the ‘unrenewed’ man, the ‘natural’ man 
(AV., RV.), as distinct from the man who is actuated by the 
Spirit. The word is thus practically another name for the 
capkixos (iil. 1, 3). See Kirkpatrick on Wisd. ix. 15. 

od Sexetar. Not ‘is incapable of receiving,’ but ‘does not 
accept,’ z.e. he rejects, refuses. Aéyeofar=‘to accept,’ ‘to take 
willingly ’ (2 Cor. viii. 17 ; 1 Thess. i. 6, etc.). 

OTL TveupaTiK@s dvaxpiverat. The nature of the process is 
beyond him; it requires characteristics which he does not 
possess. The verb is used frequently by St Paul in this 
Epistle, but not elsewhere. It is one of the 103 N.T. words 
which are found only in Paul and Luke (Hawkins, Hor. Syn. 
p. 190). Here it means ‘judge of,’ ‘sift,’ as in Acts xvii. 11 of 
the liberal-minded Beroeans, who sifted the Scriptures, to get at 
the truth: Dan. Sus. 13, 48, 51. 


15. 6 8€ mveupatixds. The man in whom zvedpa has its 
rightful predominance, which it gains by being informed by, and 
united with, the Spirit of God, and in no other way. Man as 
man is a spiritual being, but only some men are actually 
spiritual ; just as man is a rational being, but only some men are 
actually rational. Natural capacity and actual realization are 
not the same thing. 

dvakpiver pev mdvta. ‘He judges of everything,’ ‘sifts every- 

* Cf. Juvenal (xv. 147f.), Mundi Principio indulsit communis conditor 
ellis Tantum animas, nobis animum quogue. See Chadwick, Pastoral Teach- 
img, p. 153. 

4 


50 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [1I. 15, 16 


thing,’ 1 Thess. v. 21; Phil. i. 10; contrast Rom. ii. 18. The 
whole Epistle exemplifies this principle in St Paul’s person (vii. 25, 
viii. 1, xX. 14, xi. 1, etc.). Aristotle, in defining virtue, comes back 
to the judgment formed by the mature character: as Gv 6 dpovipos 
épioeev (Eth. Nic. 1. vi. 15). ‘Judgeth’ (AV., RV.) does not 
quite give the meaning of what is expressed here: ‘examines’ is 
nearer to it. 

adtés 8¢ bm obSevds dvaxpiverat, This perhaps means ‘by no 
non-spiritual person’ (cf. 1 John iv. 1). It does not mean that 
the spiritual man is above criticism (iv. 3, 4, xiv. 32; Rom. 
xiv. 4). St Paul is not asserting the principle of Protagoras, 
that the individual judgment is for each man the criterion of 
truth ; zdvrwv pérpov avOpwios, Tov pev ovTov ws éoTi Tov be pH 
évtwv ws ovK éeott. He is asserting, with Bishop Butler, the 
supremacy of conscience, and the right and duty of personal 
judgment. But it is the spiritual man who has this vantage- 
ground. The text has been perverted in more than one 
direction; on the one hand, as an excuse for the licence of 
persons whose conduct has stamped them as unspiritual, e.g. the 
Anabaptists of Miinster; on the other, as a ground for the 
irresponsibility of ecclesiastical despotism in the medizval 
Papacy, e.g. by Boniface vil. in the Bull Unam sanctam, and by 
Cornelius 4 Lapide on this passage. The principle laid down by 
St Paul gives no support to either anarchy or tyranny; it is the 
very basis of lawful authority, both civil and religious; all the 
more so, because it supplies the principle of authority with the 
necessary corrective. 

dvaxptverar. ‘Is judged of,’ ‘subjected to examination.’ 
See on iv. 3, 4, 5, ix. 3, X. 25, 273 also on Luke xxiii. 14. "Ava- 
kpuows (Acts xxv. 26) was a legal term at Athens for a preliminary 
investigation, preparatory to the actual xpiois, which for St 
Paul would have its analogue in ‘the day’ (iv. 5). Lightfoot 
gives examples of the way in which the Apostle delights to 
accumulate compounds of xpivw (iv. 3, vi. 1-6, xi. 29-32; 2 Cor. 
x. 12; Rom. ii. 1). By playing on words he sometimes 
illuminates great truths or important personal experiences. 


&* omits the whole of this verse. AC D* FG omit pév after dvaxpiver. 
mwdyra (8! B D?E F G L) is to be preferred to 74 rdvra (A C D* P). 


16. tis yap €yvw. Proof of what has just been claimed for 
the wvevyatixos: he has direct converse with a source of light 
which is not to be superseded by any merely external norm. 
The quotation (ris . . . adrdv) is from the LXX of Isa. xl. 13, 
adapted by the omission of the middle clause, xal ris airod 
aivBovdos éyévero; This clause is retained in Rom. xi. 34, while 
ds ow BiBdou airov is omitted. The aorist (€yvw) belongs to 


II. 16—IiT. 4} SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 51 


the quotation, and must not be pressed as having any special 
force here; ‘hath known’ (AV., RV.). On the other hand, the 
immediate transition from vodv Kupiov to votvy Xpiorod as equivalent 
is full of deep significance. Cf. Wisd. ix. 13; Ecclus. i. 6; 
Job xxxvi. 22, 23, 26; and see on Rom. x. 12, 13. 

vouv Kupiov. The vovvy (LXX) corresponds to the Hebrew 
for rvedua in the original. In God, vovs and zvedya are identical 
(see, as to man, on v. 14), but not in aspect, vods being suitable 
to denote the Divine knowledge or counsel, zvetuwa the Divine 
action, either in creation or in grace. 

ds ouvBiBdoe adtéy. The relative refers to ovvBovAos in Isa. 
xl. 13. As St Paul omits the clause containing ocvvBovdos, the 
és is left without any proper construction. But it finds a kind 
of antecedent in tis; ‘Who hath known... that he should 
instruct’ (RV.). SvyPuBalew occurs several times in N.T. in its 
classical meanings of ‘join together,’ ‘conclude,’ ‘ prove’; but in 
Biblical Greek, though not in classical, it has also the meaning 
of ‘instruct.’ Thus in Acts xix. 33, where the true reading 
(s A BE) seems to be ovveBiBacav ’AXdeEavdpov, Alexander is 
‘primed’ with a defence of the Jews, for which he cannot get a 
hearing. This meaning of ‘instruct’ is frequent in LXX. In 
class. Grk. we should have évB.Palev. 

Hpets S€ vodv Xpiotod Exouev. We have this by the agency of 
the Spirit of God; and the mind of the Spirit of God is known 
to the Searcher of hearts (Rom. vill. 27). The mind of Christ 
is the correlative of His Spirit, which is the Spirit of God (Rom. 
vill. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6), and this mind belongs to those who are His by 
virtue of their vital union with Him (Gal. ii. 20, 21, iii. 27; Phil. 
i. 8; Rom. xii. 14). The thought is that of v. 12 in another 
form: see also vii. 40; and 2 Cor. xiii. 3, tod é€v éuol AadodvTos 
Xpiorod. The emphatic jets (see on i. 18, 23, 30, ii. 10, 12) 
serves to associate all mvevparixoc with the Apostle, and also all 
his readers, so far as they are, as they ought to be, among oi 
owlopevor (i. 18). 

We ought probably to prefer Xpisrod (N A C D? EL P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. 


Arm., Ong.) to Kuplov (B D* F G, Aug. Ambrst.). Xpicrod would be 
likely to be altered to conform with the previous Kuplov. 


III. 1-4. In following to its application his contrast between 
the spiritual and the animal character, the Apostle is led back to 
his main subject, the oy/cpara, These dissensions show which 
type of character predominates among his readers. ‘The passage 
corresponds to ii. 13 (see note there), and forms its negative 
counterpart, prepared for by the contrast (ii. 13-16) between the 
spiritual and the animal man. 


52 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III.1, 2 


Kaya, a8ehpoi. See on i. ro and ii. 1. 

ws mveupatixois. Ideally, all Christians are rvevjarixol (xii. 3, 
13; Gal. iv. 3-7): but by no means all the Corinthians were such 
in fact.* Along with the heathen, they are in the category of 
Yuxixol Or wapxixoi, but they are not on a level with the heathen. 
They are babes in character, but ‘babes 7 Christ’ ; and, apart 
from the special matters for blame, there are many healthy 
features in their condition (i. 4-9, xi. 2). 

GAN &s capxivots. The word is chosen deliberately, and it 
expresses a shade of meaning different from capxcxds, placing the 
state of the Corinthians under a distinct aspect. ‘The termination 
-.vos denotes a matvertal relation, while -cxos denotes an efhica/ or 
dynamic relation, to the idea involved in the root. In 2 Cor. 
iii. 3 the tables are made of stone, the hearts are made of flesh 
(see note on dv6pwrivos, iv. 3). Accordingly, capxivos means ‘of 
flesh and blood,’ what a man cannot help being, but a state to 
be subordinated to the higher law of the Spirit, and enriched and 
elevated by it. We are all capxivor (6 év capxi, Gal. ii. 20), but 
we are not to live kata oapxd (xv. 50; Rom. viii. 12; 2 Cor. 
x. 2, 3). The state of the varios is not culpable 7 ztse/f, but it 
becomes culpable if unduly prolonged (xiii. 11, xiv. 20). 

There are two other views respecting capxivos which may be 
mentioned, but seem to be alien to the sense. Meyer holds that 
the word means ‘wholly of flesh,’ without any influence of the 
spirit (John iii. 6). In the oapxixds, although the flesh still has 
the upper hand, yet there is some counteracting influence of the 
spirit. This view makes the state of the capxixés an advance 
upon that of the capxivos, and is really an inversion of the true 
sense. Evans regards capkivos as a term free from azy reproach. 
It is ‘‘the first moral state after conversion, in a figure borrowed 
from an infant, which to outward view is little more than a living 
lump of dimpled flesh, with few signs of intelligence.” This is 
an exaggeration of the true sense. Cf. Arist. £7. Vic, 111. ix. 2. 


capkivos (N A BC* D* 17) is the original reading, of which capxtxors 
(D* E F G L P) is obviously a correction. 


2. ydha Spas erotica, ob BpOpa. Cf. Heb. v. 12, where oreped 
tpopy takes the place of Bp@ua. The verb governs both sub- 
stantives by a very natural zeugma: it takes a double accusative, 
and the passive has the accusative of the thing (xii. 13). The ydéAa 
is described ii. 2, the Bpdpa, ii. 6-13, and the distinction corre- 
sponds to the method necessarily adopted by every skilful teacher. 
The wise teacher proves himself to be such by his ability to 
impart, in the most elementary grade, what is really fundamental 


* Cf. yeviueba mvevuarixol, yevwoueba vads Té\eLos TS Beg (Ep. of Barn. 
iv. 11), a possible reminiscence of this and v. 16. 


III. 2,3] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 53 


and educative—what is simple, and yet gives insight into the full 
instruction that is to follow. The ‘milk,’ or 6 ris dpyjs rod 
Xpicrod Adyos (Heb. vi. 1), would be more practical than doctrinal 
(as ii. 2), and would tell of ‘temperance and righteousness and 
judgment to come’ before communicating the foundation-truths 
as to the person and work of Christ. Christ Himself begins in 
this way ; ‘Thou knowest the commandments’; ‘ Repent ye, for 
the kingdom of God is at hand.’ The metaphor was current 
among the Rabbis, and occurs in Philo (see Lightfoot’s note). 
The aorist érorica refers to a definite period, evidently that 
which began with the 76oyr of ii. 1, viz. the eighteen months of 
Acts xviii. 11. 

oUmTw yap éSuvac0e. ‘For ye had not yet the power.’ The 
verb is used absolutely, as in x. 13.* This use is not rare in 
LXX, and is found in Plato, Xenophon, etc. The tense indi- 
cates a process. This process was one of growth, but the growth 
was too slow. 


DEFGL, Arm. Aeth. AV. insert kal before od Bpdua. NABCP, 
Vulg. Copt. RV. omit. 


3. GAN’ odd€ Err Ov SUvacbe. The new verse (but hardly a 
new paragraph) should begin here (WH.). B omits ém, but the 
omission may be accidental. It adds force to the rebuke, but 
for that reason might have been inserted. The external evidence 
justifies its retention. The d\Ad has its strongest ‘ascensive’ 
force; ‘Nay, but not yet even now have ye the power’ (vi. 8; 
2 Cor. i. 9; Gal. ii. 3). The impression made by this passage, 
especially when combined with vz. 6, 10, il. 1, and dkoverau in 
v. I, is that St Paul had as yet paid only one visit to Corinth. 
The dpre in xvi. 7 does not necessarily suggest a hasty visit 
already paid. The second visit of a painful character, which 
seems to be implied in 2 Cor. xiii.. may have been paid a/fer this 
letter was written. Those who think it was paid Jefore this letter, 
explain the silence about it throughout this letter by supposing 
that it was not only painful, but very short. 

Stou yap év duty. The adverb of place acquires the force of 
a conditional particle in classical authors as here: cf. Clem. 
Rom. Cor. 43. In Tudor English, ‘where’ is sometimes used for 
‘whereas.’ But here the notion of place, corresponding to év 
viv, is not quite lost; ‘seeing that envy and strife find place 
among you.’ Cf. éu in Gal. ii. 28. 

LAdos kal €pis. Strife is the outward result of envious feeling : 
Gal. v. 20; Clem. Rom. Cor. 3. There is place in Christian 
ethics for honourable emulation (Gal. iv. 18), but &jAos without 


* Irenaeus (IV. xxxviii. 2) has odd€ yap ndvvacde Baordfew (from John 
xvi, 12), and his translator has nondum enim poteratis escam perctpere, 


54 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III. 3, 4 


qualification, though ranked high by Aristotle * (7e/. ii. 11), 
is placed by the Apostle among ‘works of the flesh.’ Lightfoot 
gives other instances of differences in estimation between heathen 
and Christian ethics. 

obxi capkixol éote; See above on capxivor, and cf. ix. 11 ; 
Rom. xv. 27. Here, as in 2 Cor. i. 12, oapxixoc means ‘con- 
formable to and governed by the flesh,’ actuated by low motives, 
above which they ought by this time to have risen. 

kata dvOpwrov wepimatette. ‘Walk on a merely human level’ 
(xv. 32; Gal. i. 11, iii, 15; Rom. iii. 5): contrast xara ®edv 
(2 Cor. vii. 9-11; Rom. viii. 27). This level cannot be dis- 
tinguished from that of the Yuxixds dvOpwros (ii. 14). Mepurarety, 
of manner of life, is frequent in Paul and 2 and 3 John, while 
other writers more often have dvaorpédew and dvacrpody: cf. 
épOodoroov (Gal. ii. 14), mopeveoGac (Luke 1. 6, vill. 14) and see 
vuer7: . Cf. jn, ausk: 


D* FG have oapklvo. for capxixol. DEFGL, Syrr. AV. add xa 
dixooracla after gus. NABCP, Vulg. Copt. Arm, Aeth. RV. omit. 
See Iren. [V. xxxviii. 2. 


4, drav yap A€yn tts. ‘For whenever one saith’: each such 
utterance is one more verification (yap) of the indictment.t Cf. 
the construction in xv. 27. 

ey pév . . . etepos 84. The pév and the d€ correspond logi- 

| cally, although not grammatically. St Paul mentions only himself 
and Apollos by name (cf. iv. 6), because he can less invidiously 
use these names as the point of departure for the coming analysis 
of the conception of the Christian Pastorate (iii. 5—iv. 5). 

obk dvOpwrot éore; ‘Are ye not mere human creatures?’ 
They did not rise above a purely human level. The expression 
is the negative equivalent of capxcxod in the parallel clause,— 
negative, because implying the lack, not only of spirituality, but 
even of manliness. The lack of spirituality is implied in the 
whole context, the lack of manliness in the word itself, which 
classical writers contrast with a@vjp. In xvi. 13 this contrast is 
implied in dvépilecOe. See Ps. xlix. 2 and Isa. ii. g for a similar 
contrast in Hebrew. ‘The Corinthians were dv@pw7ro: in failing to 
rise to the higher range of motives; and they were capxtxo/ in 

* He contrasts it with envy, which is always bad and springs from a mean 
character ; whereas the man who is moved by emulation is conscious of being 
capable of higher things. Wetstein distinguishes thus; {fos cogztatione, 
tpis verbis, Sixooraclat opere. 

+ Abbott renders, ‘In the very moment of saying’; by uttering a party- 
cry he stamps himself as carnal ; so also in xiv. 26 ( Johan. Gr. 2534). There 
is here nothing inconsistent with i. 5-7. There he thanks God for the gifts 


with which He had enriched the Corinthians, Here he blames them for the 
poor results. 


III. 4] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 55 


allowing themselves to be swayed by the lower range, a range 
which they ought (ér. yap) to have left behind as a relic of 
heathenism (vi. 11, xii. 2). 

“Tn all periods of great social activity, when society becomes 
observant of its own progress, there is a tendency to exalt the 
persons and means by which it progresses. Hence, in turn, 
kings, statesmen, parliaments, and then education, science, 
machinery and the press, have had their hero-worship. Here, 
at Corinth, was a new phase, ‘minister-worship.’ No marvel, 
in an age when the mere political progress of the Race was felt 
to be inferior to the spiritual salvation of the Individual, and to 
the purification of the Society, that ministers, the particular 
organs by which this was carried on, should assume in men’s 
eyes peculiar importance, and the special gifts of Paul or Apollos 
be extravagantly honoured. No marvel either, that round the 
more prominent of these, partizans should gather” (F. W. 
Robertson). Origen says that, if the partizans of Paul or 
Apollos are mere avpwzrou, then, if you are a partizan of some 
vastly inferior person, d7jAov Oru ovKére OSE AVvOpwrros el, GAG Kal 
xetpov % dvOpwiros. You may perhaps be addressed as yevyypara 
éxdvav, if you have such base preferences. Bachmann remarks 
that, although the present generation has centuries of Christian 
experience behind it, it can often be as capricious, one-sided, 
wrong-headed, and petty as any Corinthians in its judgments on 
its spiritual teachers and their utterances. 


We should read ovx« (8* A BC 17) rather than the more emphatic, and 
in this Epistle specially common o’x! (D EF GLP), which is genuine in 
Uv. 3, 1. 20, v. 12, vi. 7, etc. And weshould read dvOpwro(8* ABCDEFG 
17, Vulg. Copt. Aeth. RV.) rather than capxixol (N83 LP, Syrr. AV.). 
dvOparivot (iv. 3, xX. 13) is pure conjecture. 

We now reach another main section of this sub-division 
(i. 10-iv. 21) of the First Part (i. 10-vi. 20) of the Epistle. 
St Paul has hitherto (i. 17-i11. 4) been dealing with the false and 
the true conception of codéa, in relation to Christian Teaching. 
He now passes to the Teacher. 


III. 5-IV. 21. THE TRUE CONCEPTION OF THE 
CHRISTIAN PASTORATE. 


(i.) General Definition (iii. 5-9). 
(ii.) The Builders (iii. 10-15). 
(iii.) The Temple (iii. 16, 17). 
(iv.) Warning against a ‘mere human’ estimate of the Pastoral 
Office (iii. 18-iv. 5). 


56 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ III. 5 


Personal Application of the foregoing, and Conclusion of the 
subject of the Dissensions (iv. 6-21). 


III. 5-9. General Definition of the Christian Pastorate. 


Teachers are mere instruments in the hands of God, who 
alone produces the good results. 


5 What is there really in either Apollos or me? We are not 
heads of parties, and we are not the authors or the objects of 
your faith. We are just servants, through whose instrumentality 
you received the faith, according to the grace which the Lord 
gave to each of you. ®It was my work to plant the faith in you, 
Apollos nourished it; but it was God who, all the time, was 
causing it to grow. 7So then, neither the planter counts for 
anything at all, nor the nourisher, but only He who caused it to 
grow, viz. God. 8 Now the planter and the nourisher are in one 
class, equals in aim and spirit ; and yet each will receive his own 
special wage according to his own special responsibility and toil. 
9 God is the other class; for it is God who allows us a share in 
His work ; it is God’s field (as we have seen) that ye are; it is 
God’s building (as we shall now see) that ye are. 

The Apostle has shown that the dissensions are rooted, firstly, 
in a misconception of the Gospel message, akin, in most cases, 
to that of the Greeks, who seek wisdom in the low sense of clever- 
ness, and akin, in other cases, to that of the Jews, who are 
ever seeking for a sign. He goes on to trace the dissensions 
to a second cause, viz. a perverted view of the office and function 
of the Christian ministry. First, however, he lays down the true 
character of that ministry. 

5. ti odv éoriv; A question, Socratic in form, leading up 
naturally to a definition, and thus checking shallow conceit 
(v. 18, iv. 6) by probing the idea underlying its glib use of words. 


| ‘What zs Apollos? ze. What is his essential office and function ? 


a 


How is he to be ‘accounted of’? (iv. 1). The two names are 
mentioned three times, and each time the order is changed, 


perhaps intentionally, to lead up to & eiow (v. 8). The ovy 


follows naturally upon the mention of Apollos in vw. 4, but 
marks also a transition to a question raised by the whole matter 
under discussion,—a new question, and a question of the first 
rank. 

Sidxovot. The word is used here in its primary and general 


4 


III. 5-7] CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIAN PASTORATE 57 


sense of ‘servant.’* It connotes active service (see note on 
iryperys in iv. 1) and is probably from a root akin to diwxw (cf. 
‘pursuivant’). See Hort, Christian Ecclesia, pp. 202 f. 

Sv dv émortedoate. Per guos, non in quos (Beng.). The aorist 
points back to the time of their conversion (cf. xv. 2; Rom. xiii. 
11), but it sums up their whole career as Christians. 

kal éxdotw Os 6 Kupios eSwxev. As in vil. 17; Rom. xii. 3. 
The construction is condensed for ékaoros ws 6 K. édwxev aire. 
It may be understood either of the measure of faith given by the 
Lord to each believer, or of the measure of success granted by Him 


to each didxovos. Rom. xii. 3 favours the former, but perhaps | 


6 @eds nvEavey favours the latter. We have éxaoros five times in 
vv. 5-13. God deals separately with each individual soul: cf. 
iv. 5, Vil. 17, 20, 24, xli. 7, 11. And whatever success there is 
to receive a reward (v. 8) is really His; Deus coronat dona sua, 
non merita nostra (Augustine). It is clear from the frequent 
mention of @eds in what follows that 6 Kvpios means God, and it 
seems to be in marked antithesis to dudxovo.. 

We should read ti in both places (N* AB 17, Vulg. defg Aeth. RV.), 
rather than rls (C DEF GLP, Syrr. Copt. Arm. AV.). D* L, Syrr. Arm. 
Aeth. place IaiXos first and ’Avo\X\ws second, an obvious correction, to 
agree with vv. gand 6. DEFGL, Vulg. Arm. Copt. omit éorw after 
7. dé. D*? LP, Syrr. AV. insert aAN # before didcova. NABCD*EFG, 
Vulg. Copt. Arm. RV. omit. 

6. é€y® epvtevoa «.t.A. St Paul expands the previous state- 
ment. Faith, whether initial or progressive, is the work of God 
alone, although He uses men as His instruments, Note 
the significant change from aorists to imperfect. The aorists 
sum up, as wholes, the initial work of Paul (Acts xviii. 1-18) and 


the fostering ministry of Apollos (Acts xviil. 24—xix. 1): the 


imperfect indicates what was going on /Aroughout; God was all | 


along causing the increase (Acts xiv. 27, xvi. 14).¢ Sine hoc 
incremento granum a primo sationts momento esset instar lapilli : 
ex incremento statim fides germinat (Beng.). See Chadwick, 
Pastoral Teaching, p. 183. 


7. €otw ti. ‘Is something,’ est aliguid, Vulg. (cf. Acts v. 36 ; 
Gal. ii. 6, vi. 3); so Evans ; guiddam, atque adeo, quia solus, omnia 
(Beng.), Or, éoriv 1, ‘is anything’ (AV., RV.). 

LVos mercenarii sumus, altenis ferramentis operamur, nthil 
debetur nobis, nist merces laboris nostri, quia de accepto talento 
operamur (Primasius). 


* «* There is no evidence that at this time d:axovla or dtaxovety had an 
exclusively official sense” (Westcott on Eph. iv. 12); cf. Heb. vi. 10. 

+ Latin and English Versions ignore the change of tense ; and the difference 
between human activities, which come and go, and divine action, which goes 
on for ever, is lost, 


58 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IIL 8, 9 


adn’ 6 adifdvev Oeds. The strongly adversative dAAa implies 


the opposite of what has just been stated ; ‘but God who giveth 


ee 


the increase is everything. See on vii. 19, and cf. Gal. vi. 15. 
To refer érétucrey and 6 zorilwy to Baptism, as some of the 
Fathers do, is to exhibit a strange misappreciation of the con- 
text. See Lightfoot’s note. @eds is placed last with emphasis ; 
‘but the giver of the increase—God.’ 

év etow. Are in one category, as fellow-workers; conse- 
quently it is monstrous to set them against one another as rivals. 


‘As contrasted with God, they are all of one value, just nothing. 


But that does not mean that each, when compared with the other, 
is exactly equal in His sight. The other side of the truth is 
introduced with 6¢. 

éxaotos 8¢€. ‘Yet each has his own responsibility and work, 
and each shall receive his proper reward.’ The repeated técov 
marks the separate responsibility, correcting a possible misappre- 
hension of the meaning of &: congruens tteratio, antitheton ad 
‘unum’ (Beng.). The latter point is drawn out more fully in 
vu. 10 f. 


9. Ocod ydp. The yap refers to the first half, not the second, 


_ of v. 8. The workers are in one category, because they are @eov 


rae 
Sy 
pte 


Pgs 
(Tae 
a 


auvepyot. The verse contains the dominant thought of the whole 
passage, gathering up the gist of vv. 5-7. Hence the emphatic 
threefold @cod. The Gospel is the power of God (i. 18), and 
those who are entrusted with it are to be thought of, not as rival 
members of a rhetorical profession, but as bearers of a divine 
message charged with divine power. 

©co0 cuvepyot. This remarkable expression occurs nowhere else: 
the nearest to it is 2 Cor. vi. 1; the true text of 1 Thess. iii. 2 
is probably duaxovov, not cuvepyov.* It is not quite clear what 
it means. Either, ‘fellow-workers with one another in God’s 
service’; or, ‘fellow-workers with God.’ Evans decides for the 
former, because “the logic of the sentence loudly demands it.” 
So also Ellicott and others. But although God does all, yet 


SS human instrumentality in a sense co-operates (dca éroinoev 6 Ocds 


per airdv, Acts xiv. 27), and St Paul admits this aspect of the 
matter in 7 xapis Tov Meod adv epoi, xv. 10, and in cuvepyodvres, 
2 Cor. vi. 1. This seems to turn the scale in favour of the more 
simple and natural translation, ‘fellow-workers with God.’ 7 
Compare trois cuvepyovs pov ev Xpirrd Iyood (Rom. xvi. 3), which 


*In LXX cuvepyds is very rare; 2 Mac. viii. 7, xiv. 5, of favourable 
opportunities. 

t Det enim sumus adjutores (Vulg.); Etenim Det sumus administri (Beza); 
Denn wir sind Gottes Mitarbeiter (Luth.). In such constructions, suvvacy- 
bdrXwrds mov, cUvdovda abrod, cuvéxdnmos 7)uGv, the evy- commonly refers to the 
person in the genitive : but see ix. 23. 


III. 9] CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIAN PASTORATE 59 


appears to show how St Paul would have expressed the former 
meaning, had he meant it. 


Geod yedpytov, Oeod oixoSouy. The one metaphor has been 
employed in vv. 6-8, the other is to be developed in wv. 1of. 
St Paul uses three metaphors to express the respective relations 
of himself and of other teachers to the Corinthian Church. He 
is planter (6), founder (10), and father (iv. 15). Apollos and the 
rest are waterers, after-builders, and tutors. The metaphor of 
building is a favourite one with the Apostle. On the different 
meanings of oixodoyy, which correspond fairly closely to the 
different meanings of ‘building,’ see J. A. Robinson, Lphestans, 
pp. 70, 164: it occurs often in the Pauline Epistles, especially in 
the sense of ‘edification,’ a sense which Lightfoot traces to the 
Apostle’s metaphor of the building of the Church. Here it is 
fairly certain that yewpywov does not mean the ‘tilled land’ (RV. 
marg.), but the ‘husbandry’ (AV., RV.) or ‘tillage’ (AV. marg.) 
that results in tilled land, and that therefore oixodou7y does not 
mean the edifice, but the building-process which results in an 
edifice. The word yewpyov is rather frequent in Proverbs; 
elsewhere in LXX it is rare, and it is found nowhere else in N.T. 
In the Greek addition to what is said about the ant (Prov. vi. 7) 
we are told that it is without its knowing anything of tillage 
(éxetvw yewpyiov pH trdpxovtos) that it provides its food in 
summer. Again, in the Greek addition to the aphorisms on a 
foolish man (Prov. ix. 12), we are told that he wanders from the 
tracks of his own husbandry (rods afovas tov idiov yewpytov memAd- 
vyta). In Ecclus. xxvii. 6 it is said that the ‘cultivation of a 
tree’ (yewpyov <vdov) is shown by its fruit. The meaning here, 
therefore, is that the Corinthians exhibit God’s operations in 
spiritual husbandry and spiritual architecture; Det agricultura 
estis, Dei aedificatio estis (Vulg.).* It is chiefly in 1 and 2 Cor., 
Rom., and Eph. that the metaphor of building is found. See 
also Acts ix. 31, xx. 32; Jude 20; 1 Pet. ii. 5, with Hort’s note 
on the last passage. In Jer. xviii. 9, xxiv. 6, and Ezek. xxxvi. 9, 
to we have the metaphors of building and planting combined. 


III. 10-15. The Builders. 


I have laid the only possible foundation. Let those who 
build on it remember that their work will be severely tested 
at the Last Day. 


10 As to the grace which God gave me to found Churches, I 
have, with the aims of an expert master-builder, laid a foundation 
* Augustine (De cat, rud. 21) rightly omits the first estis. 


60 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ III. 10 


for the edifice ; it is for some one else to build upon it. But, 
whoever he may be, let him be careful as to the materials with 
which he builds thereon. 1! For, as regards the foundation, there 
is no room for question: no one can lay any other beside the 
one which is already laid, which of course is Jesus Christ. 
12 But those who build upon this foundation may use either 
good or bad material; they may use gold, silver, and sumptuous 
stones, or they may use wood, hay, and straw. But each 
builder’s good or bad work is certain to be made manifest in the 
end. For the Day of Judgment will disclose it, because that 
Day is revealed in fire; and the fire is the thing that will as- 
suredly test each builder’s work and will show of what character 
it is. 44If any man’s work—the superstructure which he has 
erected—shall stand the ordeal, he will receive a reward. "If 
any man’s work shall be burnt to the ground, he will lose it, 
though he himself shall be saved from destruction, but like one 
who has passed through fire. 

St Paul follows up the building-metaphor, first (v. 10) dis- 
tinguishing his part from that of others, and then (11-15) dwell- 
ing on the responsibility of those who build after him. 


10. Kata thy xdpw x.t.A. The necessary prelude to a refer- 
ence to his own distinctive work (cf. vii. 25). The ‘grace’ is 
not that of Apostleship in general, but that specially granted to 
St Paul, which led him to the particular work of founding new 
Churches, and not building on another man’s foundation (Rom. 
XV. 19, 20). 

ws gods apxitéextwy. The same expression is found in LXX 
of Isa. ili. 3, and codos is frequent of the skilled workmen who 
erected and adorned the Tabernacle (Exod. xxxv. 10, 25, XXxvi. 
1, 4,8). It means feritus. Aristotle (Z¢h. Nic. vi. vii. 1) says 
that the first notion of codia is, that, when applied to each 
particular art, it is skill; Phidias is a skilled sculptor.* See 
Lightfoot ad /oc. *Apxiréxrwv occurs nowhere else in N.T. 

Bepedtov €Oyxa. The aorist, like éfirevoa (v. 6), refers to the 
time of his visit (7AOov, ii. 1): PeweArov is an adjective (sc. Adov), 
but becomes a neuter substantive in late Greek. In the plural 


* This use of co@és is more common in poets than in prose writers. 
When co¢ds became usual of philosophical wisdom, deiwés took its place in 
the sense of skilful. Herodotus (Vv. xxiii. 3) uses both words of the clever 
and shrewd Histiaeus. Plato (Politicus 259) defines the dpyxiréxrwy, as 
distinct from an épyacrixés, as one who contributes knowledge, but not 
manual labour. Tertullian (4dv. Marc. v. 6) interprets it here as depa/ator 
disciplinae divinae, one who stakes out the boundaries, 


III. 10, 11] THE BUILDERS 61 


we may have either gender; ot OewéAvor (Heb. xi. 10, Rev. xxi. 
14, 19), Or Ta OeweAta (Acts xvi. 26 and often in LXX). No 
architect can build without some foundation, and no expert will 
build without a swve foundation. Cf. Eph. ii. 20. 

GAXos S€. The reference is not specially to Apollos: ‘The 
superstructure I leave to others.’ But they all must build, 
according to the rule that follows, houghtfully, not according to 
individual caprice. 

Ts emorodopnet. Refers specially, although not exclusively, 
to the choice of materials (vv. 12, 13). The edifice, throughout, 
is the Church, not the fabric of doctrine ; but ézocxodopety refers 
to the teaching—both form and substance—which forms the 
Church, or rather forms the character of its members (Gal. iv. 19). 


é@nxa (N* ABC* 17) is to be preferred to ré#euxa (N° C3 DE) or 
reOyxa (LP). D omits the second 6¢. There is no need to conjecture 
érockodduy for the second émoxodouet (all MSS). In vii. 32 the balance 
of evidence is strongly in favour of ras dpéoy. 


11. GepeAvov yép. A cautionary premiss to v. 12, which con- 
tinues the thought of the previous clause: ‘Let each man look 
to it how he builds upon this foundation, because, although (I 
grant, nay, I insist) none can lay any foundation rapa Tov Keipevov, 
yet the superstructure is a matter of separate and grave responsi- 
bility.’ @euedAcov stands first for emphasis. There cax be but 
one fundamental Gospel (Gal. i. 6, 7), the foundation lies there, 
and the site is already occupied. By whom is the foundation 
laid? Obviously (v. 10), by St Paul, when he preached Christ 
at Corinth (ii. 2). This is the Zzstorical reference of the words ; 
but behind the laying of the stone at Corinth, or wherever else 
the Church may be founded, there is the eternal laying of the 
foundation-stone by God, the ‘ only wise’ architect of the Church. 
See Evans. 


Compare the use of xeyévy of the city that is already there, and ri@éaowy 
of the lamp which has to be placed (Matt. v. 14, 15). 


Os €otw “Ingots Xpiotés. Both name and title are in place, 
and neither of them alone would have seemed quite satisfying : 
_ see on il. 2. He is the foundation of all Christian life, faith, 
and hope.* In Eph. ii. 20 He is the chief corner-stone, 
dxpoywviatos, the basis of unity: cf. Acts iv. 11. It is only by 
admitting some inconsistency of language that the truth can be 
at all adequately expressed. There is inconsistency even if we 
leave Eph. ii. 20 out of account. He has just said that he laid 
the foundation in a skilful way. Now he says that it was lying 
there ready for him, and that no other foundation is possible. 
Each statement, in its own proper sense, is true; and we need 

* See Lock, St Paul, the Master-Builder, pp. 69. 


62 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III. 11, 12 


both in order to get near to the truth. As in Gal. 1. 8, apd 
means ‘besides,’ not ‘contrary to,’ ‘at variance with.’ 


’Inoods Xpisrés (SN A BL P Sah. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) rather than Xpiorés 
’Incots (C?D E, Vulg.). Several cursives have ‘Inaois 6 Xp. 


12. et 8€ tus «.t-X. The various kinds of superstructure 
represent various degrees of inferiority in the ministry of the 
‘after-builders,’ z.e. according as they make, or fail to make, a 
lasting contribution to the structure. With regard to the whole 
passage, three things are to be noted: 

(1) The metaphor is not to be pressed too rigidly by seeking 
to identify each term with some detail in the building. This 
Grotius does in the following way: proponit ergo nobis domum 
cujus parietes sunt ex marmore, columnae partim ex auro partim 
ex argento, trabes ex ligno, fastigium vero ex stramine et culmo ; 
all which is very frigid.* The materials are enumerated with 
a rapid and vivid asyndeton, which drives each point sharply 
and firmly home. 

(2) The ‘wood, hay, stubble’ do not represent teaching that 
is intentionally disloyal or false (airos 5€ cw6yoerar), but such 
as is merely inferior. 

(3) The imagery alternates between the suggestion of teaching 
as moulding persons, and the suggestion of persons as moulded 
by teaching (Evans), so that it is irrelevant to ask whether the 
materials enumerated are to be understood of the fruits of 
doctrine, such as different moral guwa/ities (Theodoret), or of 
worthy and unworthy Christians. The two meanings run into 
one another, for the qualities must be exhibited in the lives of 
persons. We have a similar combination of two lines of thought 
in the interpretation of the parable of the Sower. There the 
seed is said to be sown, and the soil is said to be sown, and in 
the interpretation these two meanings are mingled. Yet the 
interpretation is clear enough. 

xpuo.ov, dpyuptov. As distinct from xpvoos and dpyupos, 
which indicate the metals in any condition, these diminutives 
are commonly used of gold and silver made into something, such 
as money or utensils; as when by ‘gold’ we mean gold coins, 
or by ‘silver’ mean silver coins or plate (Acts iii. 6, xx. 33). 
But this is not a fixed rule. See Matt. xxiii. 16 and Gen. ii. 11. 

AiBous tysious. Either ‘costly stones,’ such as marble or 
granite, suitable for building, or ‘precious stones,’ suitable for 
ornamentation. Isa. liv. 11, 12 and Rev. xxi. 18, 19, combined 


* It is perhaps worse than frigid. Obviously, it would be unskilful to 
use both sets of material in the same building ; Origen regards {v\a as worse 
than xépros, and xdépros than xaXdun, which can hardly be right. See Chase, 
Chrysostom, pp. 186, 187. 


III. 12, 13] THE BUILDERS 63 


with the immediate context (‘gold and silver’), point to the 
latter meaning. It is internal decoration that is indicated. 

xXoptov, kakdunv. Either of these might mean straw or dried 
grass for mixing with clay, as in Exod. v. 12, xaAdpnv eis ayvpa, 
‘stubble instead of straw’; and either might mean material for 
thatching. omuleogue recens horrebat regia culmo (Virg. Aen. 
viii. 654). Luther’s contemptuous expression respecting the 
Epistle of St James as a ‘right strawy epistle’ was made in 
allusion to this passage. Nowhere else in N.T. does xaddpuy 
occur. 

After émi r. Geuécov, 88 C2 DE LP, Vulg. AV. add rodrov. N* A BC*, 

Sah. Aeth. RV. omit. We ought probably to read ypvo.ov (NX B) and 

dpyvpiov (SN BC) rather than xpicov and dpyuporw (ADELP).  B, Aeth. 

insert cal after xpUcvov. 

183. éxdotou 15 €pyov. ‘These words sum up the alternatives, 
standing in apposition to the substantival clause, ei d€ tus... 
xaXdunv. Individual responsibility is again insisted upon: we 
have exaoros four times in vv. 8-13. 

} yop tpépa Syddoe. ‘The Day’ (as in 1 Thess. v. 4; 
Rom. xiii, 12; Heb. x. 25), without the addition of Kupiou 
(1 Thess. v. 2) or of kpicews (Matt. xii. 36) or of éxetvy (2 Thess. 
l 10; 2 Tim. i. 12, 18, iv. 8), means the Day of Judgment. 
This is clear from iv. 3, 5, ub¢ ex intervallo, ut solet, clarius 
loquitur (Beng.). ‘The expression ‘ Day of the Lord’ comes from 
the O.T. (Isa. i. 12 ; Jer. xlvi. 10 ; Ezek. vii. 10, etc.), and perhaps 
its original meaning was simply a definite period of time. But 
with this was often associated the idea of day as opposed to 
night: ‘the Day’ would be a time of light, when what had 
hitherto been hidden or unknown would be revealed. So here. 
And here the fire which illuminates is also a fire which durms, 
and thus ¢es¢s the solidity of that which it touches. What is 
sound survives, what is worthless is consumed. 

€v wupt dmoxahumrerat. ‘Ihe nominative is neither 17d épyov 
nor 6 Kvpuos, but 7 Hepa. ‘The Day’ is (to be) revealed in 
mee (2 Thess.1. 7, 8, 1. 8; Dan. vii. 9 f. 5 Maleiimain)es Chis is 
a common use of the present tense, to indicate that a coming 
event is so certain that it may be spoken of as already here. 
The predicted revelation is sure to take place. See on dzoxa- 
Avmrerat in Luke xvii. 30, Lightfoot on 1 Thess. v. 2, and Hort 
een eet. 1.7, 13. 

St Paul is not intending to describe the details of Christ’s 
Second Coming, but is figuratively stating, what he states without 
figure in iv. 5, that at that crisis the real worth of each man’s 
work will be searchingly tested. ‘This test he figures as the 
fire of the Second Advent, wrapping the whole building round, 
and reducing all its worthless material to ashes. ‘The fire, 


64 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III. 13-15 


therefore, is regarded more as a testing than as an illuminating 
agent, as /entatio tribulationis (August. Enchir. 68), which by its 
destructive power makes manifest the enduring power of all 
that it touches. There is no thought in the passage of a penal, 
or disciplinary, or purgative purpose; nor again is there the 
remotest reference to the state of the soul between death and 
judgment. Hic locus ignem purgatorium non modo non fovet 
sed plane extinguit, nam in novissimo demum die ignts probabit. 
.. . Ergo ignis purgatorius non praecedit (Beng.). ‘The év sug- 
gests that fire is the element in which the revelation takes place. 
At the Parousia Christ is to appear év rupi droyds (2 Thess. i. 8) 
or & dAoyi zupos (Is. lxvi. 15). In the Apocalypse of Baruch 
(xlviii. 39) we have, ‘A fire will consume their thoughts, and 
in flame will the meditations of their reins be /vzed; for the 
Judge will come and will not tarry.” But elsewhere in that 
book (xliv. 15, lix. 2, etc.) the fire is to consume the wicked, 
a thought of which there is no trace here. ‘There are no wicked, 
but only unskilful builders; all build, although some build 
unwisely, upon Christ. 

kat éxdorov. Still under the 67. It is better to regard 76 
épyov as the acc. governed by doxidoe, with airo as pleonastic, 
than as the nom. to éorw. A pleonastic pronoun is found with 
good authority in Matt. ix. 27; Luke xvii. 7; and elsewhere: 
but the readings are sometimes uncertain. To take atro with 
rip, ‘the fire itself,’ has not much point. In all three verses 
(13, 14, 15), TO €pyov refers, not to a man’s personal character, 
good or bad, but simply to his work as a builder (12). 


NDEL, Vulg. Sah. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit ai7vé, but we ought 
probably to read it with A BC P 17 and other cursives. 


14. pevei. It is doubtful, and not very important, whether 
we should accent this word as a future, to agree with xataxanoerat 
and other verbs which are future, or méver, as a present, which 
harmonizes better with the idea of permanence: cf. péver in 
<M. 73. 

pioOdv. Compare v. 8 and Matt. xx. 8: in ix. 17, 18 the 
reference is quite different. The nature of the reward is not 
stated, but it is certainly not eternal salvation, which may be 
won by those whose work perishes (v. 15). Something corre- 
sponding to the ‘ten cities’ and ‘five cities’ in the parable may 
be meant ; opportunities of higher service. 


15. xataxayjetat. This later form is found as a z./. (AL) in 
2 Pet. iii. 10, where it is probably a correction of the puzzling 
etpeOjoera. (RB KP). In Rev. xviii. 8 the more classical xara- 
xavOjcera is found. The burning of Corinth by Mummius may 
have suggested this metaphor. 


III. 15] THE BUILDERS 65 


{npiwOjcerat. It does not much matter whether we regard 
this as indefinite, ‘ He shall suffer loss’ (AV., RV.), de¢rimentum 
patietur (Vulg.), damnum faciet (Beza), or understand tov puoOdv 
from v. 14, ‘He shall be mulcted of the expected reward.’ In 
Exod. xxi. 22 we have émri{nusov CypiwOyoerar. The airos is in 
favour of the latter. 

adtés 8€ cwOjcetrar, The airds is in contrast to the pices: 
the reward will be lost, but the worker himself will be saved. 
If fnprwbyoerac is regarded as indefinite, then airés may be in 
contrast to the épyov: the man’s bad work will perish, but that 
does not involve his perdition. The cw6yoera can hardly refer 
to anything else than eternal salvation, which he has not for- 
feited by his bad workmanship: he has built on the true 
foundation. Salvation is not the piofds, and so it may be 
gained when all puc@ds is lost. But it may also be lost as 
well as the puc6ds. The Apostle does not mean that every 
teacher who takes Christ as the basis of his teaching will neces- 
sarily be saved: his meaning is that a very faulty teacher may 
be saved, and ‘will be saved, if at all, so as through fire.’ See 
Augustine, De Civ. Det, xxi. 21, 26. 

oUTws 8€ ds 81a Tupds. ‘ But only as one passing through fire 
is saved’: a quasi-proverbial expression, indicative of a narrow 
escape from a great peril, as ‘a firebrand pluckt out of the fire’ 
(Amos iv. 11 ; Zech. iii. 2), It is used here with special reference 
to the fire which tests the whole work (v. 13). The da is local 
rather than instrumental. The fire is so rapid in its effects 
that the workman has to rush ¢hvough it to reach safety: cf. dv 
tdatos (1 Pet. ili. 20), and dijAGopev dtd wupds Kai vdaros (Ps. 
Ixvi. 12). To explain cw6yjoerar da tupds as meaning ‘shall be 
kept alive in the midst of hell-fire’ is untenable translation and 
monstrous exegesis. Such a sense is quite inadmissible for 
cwOyoerac and incompatible with ovrws ws, Moreover, the fire 
in v. 13 is the fire alluded to, and that fire cannot be Gehenna. 
Atto of Vercelli thinks that this passage is one of the ‘things 
hard to be understood‘ alluded to in 2 Pet. ili. 16. Augustine 
_ (Enchir. 68) says that the Christian who ‘cares for the things of 
the Lord’ (vii. 32) is the man who builds with ‘gold, silver, and 
precious stones,’ while he who ‘cares for the things of the world, 
how he may please his wife’ (vil. 33), builds with ‘wood, hay, 
stubble.’ 


III. 16-17. The Temple. 


St Paul now passes away from the builders to the Temple. 
The section is linked with vv. 10-15 both by the opening words, 
which imply some connexion, and by the word vads, which is 


5 


66 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III 16 


doubtless suggested by the ‘building’ of av. of. (cf. Eph. 
ii. 20-22). On the other hand, it is quite certain that there is 
a change of subject : airos owOyoera (v. 15) and POepet rovrov 6 
@eds are contradictory propositions, and they cannot be made 
to apply to the same person, for #6eipew cannot be attenuated 
to an equivalent for {yprodv (v. 15). 

The subject of the cx‘opara still occupies the Apostle’s mind, 
and he seems to be thinking of their ultimate tendency. By 
giving rein to the flesh (z. 3) they tend to banish the Holy 
Spirit, and so to destroy the Temple constituted by His presence. 


16. Odx oidare; Frequent in this Epistle, and twice in 
Romans; also Jas. iv. 4. As in v. 6, vi. 16, 19, the question 
implies a rebuke. The Corinthians are so carnal that they 
have never grasped, or have failed to retain, so fundamental a 
doctrine as that of the indwelling of the Spirit.* 

vads Geo éote. Not ‘a temple of God,’ but ‘God’s Temple.’ 
There is but one Temple, embodied equally truly in the whole 
Church, in the local Church, and in the individual Christian ; 
the local Church is meant here. As a metaphor for the Divine 
indwelling, the vads, which contained the Holy of Holies, is more 
suitable than tepdv, which included the whole of the sacred en- 
closure (vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 21). To converts from 
heathenism the vads might suggest the ce//a in which the image 
of the god was placed. It is one of the paradoxes of the Christian 
Church that there is only one vads @eod and yet each Christian 
is a vaos: simul omnes unum templum et singula templa sumus, 
guia non est Deus in omnibus quam in singulis major (Herv.). 
Naos is from vavew, ‘to dwell.’ 

kal To mvedpa, The xai is epexegetic. Both Gentile and Jew 
might speak of their vaos @eod, but, while the pagan temple was 
inhabited by an zmage of a god, and the Jewish by a syméol of 
the Divine Presence (Shekinah), the Christian temple is inhabited 
by the Sfzrit of God Himself. 

év duty oixec. ‘In you hath His dwelling-place.’ In Luke 
xi. 51 we have oixos, where, in the parallel passage in Matt. 
Xxill. 35, we have vads. Tore otv padiora éodpeba vaos cod, av 
xXopytixors Eavtois katagKkevaowpev Tod Ivetiparos tod @eod (Orig.). 


* On the very insufficient ground that Kephas is not mentioned in vv. 5 
and 6, but is mentioned in v. 22, Zahn regards vv. 16-20 as directed against 
the Kephas party. He says that St Paul knows more than he writes about 
this faction, and fears more than he knows (/utrod. to N.T. i. pp. 288 f.). 

See on v. 1 for the resemblance to Ep. of Barn. iv. 11. Ignatius (Zp/. 
15) has wavra ofy rodyev, ws abrod év july Karo.kodvTos, iva Guev avrod, vaoi 
wal avros év quiv Oeds. 


III. 16, 17} THE TEMPLE 67 


It is not easy to decide between év duty olket (BP 17) and olxe? év tyiv 
(SNACDEFGL, Vulg.). The former is more forcible, placing the 
‘permanent dwelling’ last, with emphasis. 


17. ci tis... pbelper... pOepet. The AV. greatly mars the 
effect by translating the verb first ‘defile’ and then ‘destroy.’ 
The same verb is purposely used to show the just working of the 
lex talionis in this case: one destruction is requited by another 
destruction. The destroyers of the Temple are those who banish 
the Spirit, an issue to which the dissensions were at least tending. 
Here the reference is to unchristian faction, which destroyed, by 
dividing, the unity of the Church: a building shattered into 
separate parts isaruin. In vi. 19 the thought is of uncleanness 
in the strict sense. But all sin is a defiling of the Temple and is 
destructive of its consecrated state.* We have a similar play on 
words to express a similar resemblance between sin and its 
punishment in Rom. i. 28; xa&s ov« edoxiuacay tov @cdv exew 
ev ertyvwoel, FapeduKev adtovs 6 Weds eis dddxyuov voov. And there 
is a still closer parallel in Rey. xi. 18; duapGetpar trots diahGecpov- 
tas tiv ynv. Neither dGe(pew nor diapGe(pev are commonly used 
of God’s judgments, for which the more usual verb is daoAAvew 
or droAAvvac: but both here and in Rev. xi. 18 $6ecpew or d1a- 
Oeipew is preferred, because of its double meaning, ‘corrupt’ 
and ‘destroy.’ The sinner destroys by corrupting what is holy 
and good, and for this God destroys him. We have ¢6eipeyv in 
the sense of corrupt, xv. 33; 2 Cor. xi. 3; Rev. xix. 2. 

pGepet todtoy 6 eds. The Vulgate, like the AV., ignores the 
telling repetition of the same verb: sz gucs autem templum Det 
violaverit, disperdet illum Deus. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 6) 
preserves it: sé templum Dei quis vitiavertt, vitiabitur, utique a 
Deo templi ; and more literally (De Pudic. 16, 18) vitiabit tllum 
Deus. But neither PGepet here, nor oAeOpos in 1 Thess. v. 3, nor 
6XeOpor aidviov in 2 Thess. i. 9, must be pressed to mean anni- 
hilation (see on v. 5). Nor, on the other hand, must it be 
watered down to mean mere physical punishment (cf. xi. 30). 
The exact meaning is nowhere revealed in Scripture ; but terrible 
ruin and eternal loss of some kind seems to be meant. See 
Beet’s careful examination of these and kindred words, Zhe Zast 
Things, pp. 122 f. 

dyiés €ottv. It is ‘holy,’ and therefore not to be tampered 
with without grave danger. Both the Tabernacle and the 
Temple are frequently called dy.os, and in the instinct of archaic 
religion in the O.T. the idea of danger was included in that of 


* This is a third case, quite different from the two cases in vv. 14, 15. 
A good superstructure wins a reward for the builder. A bad superstructure 
perishes but the builder is rescued. But he who, instead of adding to the 
edifice, ruins what has been built, will himself meet with ruin. 


68 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ III. 17, 18 


‘holiness.’ See Gray on Num. iv. 5, 15, 19, 20, and Kirk- 
patrick on 1 Sam. vi. 20 and 2 Sam. vi. 7; and cf. Lev. x. 6, 
Xvi. 2,15. 

oitwés éote Gpets. It has been doubted whether vads or ay.os 
is the antecedent of oirwes, but the former is probably right: 
‘which temple ye are’ (AV., RV.).* The relative is attracted 
into the plural of tpets. Edwards quotes, tov ovpavdv, ods 3: 
moAovs kadovow (Plato, Crat. 405). The meaning seems to be, 
‘The temple of God is holy ; ye are the temple of God ; therefore 
ye must guard against what violates your consecration.’ As 
distinct from the simple relative, otrwwes commonly carries with 
it the idea of category, of belonging to a class; ‘and this is what 
ye are,’ ‘and such are ye’: cf. Gal. v. 19, where the construction 
is parallel. 


@bepei (SN ABC, defg Vulg.) rather than ¢@elpe. (D EF GLP, Am.) 
where the difference between Greek and Latin in bilingual MSS. is remark- 
able: see on iv. 2. rToirov (§ BC L P) rather than a’rév (A DE FG). 


| 


III. 18-IV. 5. Warning against a mere ‘Human’ Estimate 
of the Pastoral Office. 


Let no one profane God's Temple by taking on himself 
to set up party teachers in it. Regard us teachers as simply 
Christ's stewards. 


18T am not raising baseless alarms; the danger of a false 
estimate of oneself is grave. It may easily happen that a man 
imagines that he is wise in his intercourse with you, with the 
wisdom of the non-Christian world. Let him become simple 
enough to accept Christ crucified, which is the way to become 
really wise. }°For this world’s wisdom is foolishness in God’s 
sight, as it stands written in Scripture, Who taketh the wise in 
their own craftiness; 2°and in another passage, The Lord 
knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain. *If this 
is SO, it is quite wrong for any one to plume himself on the men 
whom he sets up as leaders. For yours is no party-heritage ; 
it is universal. 22 Paul, Apollos, Kephas, the world, life, death, 
whatever is, and whatever is to be, all of it belongs to you; 
3 but you—you belong to no human leader; you belong to 
Christ, and Christ to God. Between you and God there is no 
human leader. 


* We find the same thought, on a lower level, even in such a writer as 
Ovid (Z//. ex Ponto, 11. i. 34); guae templum pectore semper habet. 


III. 18] ‘HUMAN’ ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 69 


Iv. ! The right way of regarding Apollos, myself, and other 
teachers, is that we are officers under Christ, commissioned to 
dispense the truths which His Father has revealed to us in Him, 
just as stewards dispense their masters’ goods. 2 Here, further- 
more, you must notice that all stewards are required to prove 
their fidelity. %But, as regards myself, it is a matter of small 
moment that my fidelity should be scrutinized and judged by you 
or by any human court. Yet that does not mean that I constitute 
myself as my own judge. *My judgments on myself would be 
inconclusive. For it may be the case that I have no conscious- 
ness of wrong-doing, and yet that this does not prove that I am 
guiltless. My conscience may be at fault. The only competent 
judge of my fidelity is the Lord Christ. ® That being so, cease 
to anticipate His decision with your own premature judgments. 
Wait for the Coming of the Judge. It is He who will both 
illumine the facts that are now hidden in darkness, and also 
make manifest the real motives of human conduct: and then 
whatever praise is due will come to each faithful steward direct 
from God. That will be absolutely final. 

The Apostle sums up his ‘case’ against the oyiopata, com- 
bining the results of his exposure of the false ‘wisdom,’ with its 
correlative conceit, and of his exposition of the Pastoral Office 
(18-23). He concludes by a warning against their readiness to 
form judgments, from a mundane standpoint, upon those whose 
function makes them amenable only to the judgment of the Day 
of the Lord. 


18. Mydeis éautéy éefamatdtw. A solemn rebuke, similar to 
that of pw) wAavaobe in vi. 9, xv. 33, and Gal. vi. 7, and even 
more emphatic than that which is implied in ov« oidare (v. 16). 
He intimates that the danger of sacrilege and of its heavy penalty 
(vv. 16, 17) is not so remote as some of the Corinthians may 
think. Shallow conceit may lead to disloyal tampering with the 
people of Christ. That there is a sacrt/egrous tendency in faction 
Is illustrated by Gal. v. 7-12, vi. 12, 13; 2 Cor. xi. 3, 4, 13-15, 
20; and the situation alluded to in Galatians may have been in 
the Apostle’s mind when he wrote the words that are before us 
—words which have a double connexion, viz. with vv. 16, 17, 
and with the following section. St Paul is fond of compounds 
with ék: v. 7, 13, Vi. 14, XV. 34. 

et tis Boxet aopids elvar. Not, ‘seemeth to be wise’ (AV.), 
videtur sapiens esse (Vulg.); but, ‘thinketh that he is wise’ (RV.), 


7O FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS { III. 18, 19 


sibi videtur esse sapiens (Beza). He considers himself an acute 
man of the world, quite able to decide for himself whether Paul, 
or Apollos, or Kephas is the right person to follow in matters of 
religion. We have the same use of doxet in Vill. 2, X. 12, XIV. 37. 
Excepting Jas. i. 26, ef tus doxet is peculiar to Paul; and there 
the AV. makes the same mistake as here, in translating ‘seem’ 
instead of ‘think.’ Here éefarardrw, and there drar@v, may be 
regarded as decisive. It is the man’s se//deceit that is criticized 
in both cases: his estimate is all wrong. See J. B. Mayor on 
Jas. 1. 26. It is perhaps not accidental that the Apostle says «i 
Tis... €v div, and not «i Tis tvav. The warning suggests that 
the self-styled aodpds is among them, but not that he is one of 
themselves: the wrong-headed teacher has come from elsewhere. 

év spiv ev tO aidw to’tw. We might put a comma after év 
tpiv, for the two expressions are in contrast; ‘in your circle,’ 
which has the heavenly wisdom and ought to be quite different 
from what is ‘in this world’ and has only mundane wisdom. 
The latter is out of place in a Christian society (i. 20, 22, il. 6, 8). 
Epictetus (Zmchir. 18) warns us against thinking outselves wise 
when o¢hers think us to be such; pydev BovAov doxeiv éxictacbar: 
kav d0€ys Tiow €lvai Tis, arioter TEavTO. 


Cyprian ( Zest. iii. 69, De bono patient. 2) takes é&v 7G alan ToUT® with 
bwpds yéverOw: mundo hutc stultus fiat. So also does Origen (Ce/s. i. 13; 
Philoc. 18); and also Luther: der werde ein Narr in dieser Welt. This 
makes good sense; ‘If any man thinks himself wise in relation to you 
Christians, let him become a fool in relation to this world’: but it is not 
the right sense. It is copds, not pwpds, that is qualified by év 7@ alOu Tr. : 
‘If any man thinks himself wise in your circle—I mean, of course, with this 
world’s wisdom.’ From év duty, ‘in a Christian Church,’ it might have 
been supposed that he meant the true wisdom, and he adds éy 7, al. 7. to 
avoid misunderstanding. 


pwpds yéverOw. ‘Let him drop his false wisdom,’ the conceit 
that he has about himself: i. 18-20, 23, ii. 14. 

iva yévytat copds. So as to be brought ‘unto all riches of 
the full assurance of understanding, unto full knowledge of the 
mystery of God, even Christ’ (Col. ii. 3).* 


19. He explains the paradox of the last verse by stating the 
principle already established, i. 21, ii. 6. 

Tapa T@ Ged. ‘Before God’ as judge; Rom. ii. 13, xii. 16; 
Acts xxvi. 8. Although pwpdés is common in N.T. and LXX, 
pwpia occurs, in N.T., only in these three chapters; and, in 
LXX, only in Ecclus. xx. 31, xli. 15 

6 Spaccdpevos «.7.A. From Job v. 13; a quotation inde- 
pendent of the LXX, and perhaps somewhat nearer to the 


_ * Cf. Oval of cuverol éavrois kal évimiov éavrdy émiotqpoves: Barnabas 
(iv. I1) quotes these words as ypag7. 


II. 19-21] ‘HUMAN’ ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 7\ 


original Hebrew. Job is quoted only twice in N.T., both times 
by St Paul; and both here and in Rom. xi. 35, and in no other 
quotation, he varies considerably from the LXX. Like 6 roy 
in Heb. i. 7, 6 dpacadpuevos here is left without any verb. It 
expresses the strong grasp or ‘grip’ which God has upon the 
slippery cleverness of the wicked: cf. Ecclus. xxvi. 7, where it is 
said of an evil wife, 6 xparav airs ds 6 Spaccopevos oKopriov: 
and Ecclus. xxxiv. (xxxi.) 2, the man who has his mind upon 
dreams is @s dpacodpevos oxids. The words in Ps. ii. 12 which 
are mistranslated ‘Kiss the Son’ are rendered in the LXX, 
dpagacGe watdetas, ‘Lay hold on instruction.’ The verb occurs 
nowhere else in N.T., and in the LXX of Job v. 13 we have 6 
kataAap favor. 

tavoupyia. ‘ Versatile cleverness,’ ‘readiness for anything’ in 
order to gain one’s own ends. ‘Craftiness,’ like astutia (Vulg.), 
emphasizes the cunning which zavovpyia often implies. The 
LXX has év ¢povica, a word which commonly has a good 
meaning, while zavovpyia almost always has a bad one, although 
not always in the LXX, eg. Prov. i. 4, vili. 5. The adjective 
mavovpyos is more often used in a better sense, and in the LXX 
is used with ¢péviuos to translate the same Hebrew word. 
Perhaps ‘cleverness’ would be better here than ‘craftiness’ 
(AV., RV.). See notes on Luke xx. 23; Eph. iv. 14. 


20. Kuptos ywooxer. From Ps. xciv. 11, and another instance 
(i. 20) of St Paul’s freedom in quoting: the LXX, following the 
Hebrew, has av$pw7wv, where he (to make the citation more in 
point) has cofov. But the Psalm contrasts the designs of men 
with the designs of God, and therefore the idea of codes is in the 
context. 

Siadoyiopots. In the LXX the word is used of the thoughts 
of God (Ps. xl. 6, xcii. 5). When used of men, the word often, 
but not always, has a bad sense, as here, especially of questioning 
or opposing the ways of God (Ps. lvi. 5; Luke v. 22, vi. 8; Rom. 
ie2n; Jas, ii. 4). 

; 21. adore pndets kavydobw. Conclusion from vv. 18-20. The 

connexion presupposes an affinity between conceit in one’s ow 
wisdom and a readiness to make over much of a human leader. 
The latter implies much confidence in one’s own estimate of the 
leader. Consequently, the spirit of party has in it a subtle 
element of shallow arrogance. We have dare, ‘so then,’ with 
an imperative, iv. 5, x. 12, xl. 33, xiv. 39, xv. 58. Outside this 
argumentative and practical Epistle the combination is not very 
common; very rare, except in Paul. It seems to involve an 
abrupt change from the oratio obligua to the oratio recta. It 
marks the transition from explanation to exhortation. 


72 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II1. 21, 22 


év dvOpdos. To ‘glory in men’ is the opposite of ‘glorying 
in the Lord’ (i. 21). The Apostle is referring to their wrong- 
headed estimation of himself, Apollos, and others (as in iv. 6), 
not to party-leaders boasting of their large following. Leaders 
might glory in the patience and faith of their disciples (2 Thess. 
i. 4), but not in that as any credit to the leaders themselves. 
All partizan laudation is wrong. 

mdvta yap suav éoriv. ‘You say, I belong to Paul, or, I 
belong to Apollos. So far from that being true, it is Paul and 
Apollos who belong to you, for a// things belong to you.’ 
Instead of contenting himself with saying ‘We are yours,’ he 
asserts that and a very great deal more; not merely zavres, ‘all 
servants of God,’ but zavra, ‘all God’s creatures,’ belong to them. 
Yet his aim is, not merely to proclaim how wide their heritage is, 
but to show them that they have got the facts by the wrong end. 
They want to make him a chieftain; he is really their servant. 
The Church is not the property of Apostles; Apostles are 
ministers of the Church. Quia omnia vestra sunt, nolite in 
singulis gloriari; nolite speciales vobis magtistros defendere, 
quoniam omnibus utimini (Atto). Omnia propter sanctos creata 
sunt, tanguam nthil habentes et omnia possidentes (Primasius). 

The thought is profound and far-reaching. ‘The believer in 
God through Christ is a member of Christ and shares in His 
universal lordship, all things being subservient to the Kingdom 
of God, and therefore to his eternal welfare (vii. 31 ; Rom. viii. 
28; John xvi. 33; 1 John v. 4, 5), as means to an end. The 
Christian loses this birthright by treating the world or its 
interests as ends in themselves, ze. by becoming enslaved to 
persons (vii. 23; 2 Cor. xi. 20) or things (vi. 12; Phil. iii. 19). 
Without God, we should be the sport of circumstances, and ‘the 
world’ would crush us, if not in ‘life,’ at least in ‘death.’ As it 
is, all these things alike ‘are ours.’ We meet them as members 
of Christ, rooted in God’s love (Rom. viii. 37). The Corinthians, 
by boasting in men, were forgetting, and thereby imperilling, 
their prerogative in Christ. There is perhaps a touch of Stoic 
language in these verses; see on iv. 8. Origen points out that 
the Greeks had a saying, Ildvra tod cogod éoriv, but St Paul was 
the first to say, Idvra tod ayiov éoriv. 


22. cite... eite'. . . etre. The enumeration, rising in a 
climax, is characteristic of St Paul (Rom. viii. 38): the rdvra is 
first expanded and then repeated. We might have expected a 
third triplet, Aas¢, present, and future; but the past is not ours 
in the sense in which the present and future are. We had no 
part in shaping it, and cannot change it. In the first triplet, he 
places himself first, #.e. at the bottom of the climax. 


IIT. 22, 23] ‘HUMAN’ ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 73 


eite koopos. ‘The transition from Kephas to the xdopos is, as 
Bengel remarks, rather vefentinus saltus, and made, he thinks, 
with a touch of impatience, lest the enumeration should become 
too extended. But perhaps alliteration has something to do 
with it. This Bengel spoils, by substituting ‘Peter’ for ‘ Kephas.’ 
The ‘world’ is here used in a neutral sense, without ethical 
significance, the world we live in, the physical universe. 

eite {wi cite Odvatos. If xdopos is the physical universe, it is 
probable that {wx and @dvaros mean physical life and death. They 
sum up all that man instinctively clings to or instinctively dreads. 
From life and death in this general sense we pass easily to évec- 
tora. It is by life in the world that eternal life can be won, and 
death is the portal to eternal life. In Rom. viii. 38 death is 
mentioned before life, and éveor@ra and péAAovta do not close 
the series. 

cite €veot@ta cite péeANovta. These also ought probably to be 
confined in meaning to the things of this life. They include the 
whole of existing circumstances and all that lies before us to the 
moment of death. All these things ‘are yours,’ #.e. work together 
for your good. It is possible that jéAAovra includes the life 
beyond the grave; but the series, as a whole, reads more con- 
sistently, if each member of it is regarded as referring to human 
experience in this world. 


For tuav, tuets, B and one or two cursives read fuay, quets. After 
ipov, D?E L, fg Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. add éor. 


23. Gyets 8€ Xpiotod. These words complete the rebuke of 
those who said that they belonged to Paul, etc. They belonged 
to no one but Christ, and they all alike belonged to Him. 
While all things were theirs, they were not their own (vi. 20, 
vii. 23), and none of them had any greater share in Christ than 
the rest (i. 13). Christians, with all their immense privileges, are 
not the ultimate owners of anything. There is only one real 
Owner, God. On the analogy between Xpicrod here and 
Kaicapos = “‘ belonging to the Emperor” in papyri see Deissmann, 
Light from the Anc. East, p. 382. Cf. xv. 23; Gal. iii. 29, 
V. 24. 

Xpiotis 8€ Gcod. Not quite the same in meaning as Luke 
ix. 20, xxill. 35; Acts il. 18; Rev. xii. ro. In all those passages 
we have 6 Xpuoros tov @eod or aitov. Here Xpiords is more of a 
proper name. The thought of the Christian’s lordship over the 
world has all its meaning in that of his being a son of God 
through Christ (Rom. viii. 16, 17). This passage is one of the 
few in which St Paul expresses his conception of the relation of 
Christ to God (see on ii. 16). Christ, although év popd7j @eod 
imdpxwv (Phil. ii. 6, where see Lightfoot and Vincent), is so 


74 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS |IvV. 1 


derivatively (Col. i. 15, where see Lightfoot and Abbott): His 
glory in His risen and exalted state is given by God (Phil. ii. 9; 
cf. Rom. vi. 10), and in the end is to be merged in God (see on 
xv. 28). Theodoret says here, odx ds xricpa Meod, GAN’ ds vids 
tov @eov. There is no need to suppose, with some of the 
Fathers and later writers, that St Paul is here speaking of our 
Lord’s human nature exclusively ; there is no thought of separat- 
ing the two natures; he is speaking of ‘Christ,’ the Divine 
Mediator in His relation to His Father and to His ‘many 
brethren.’ See many admirable remarks in Sanday, Ancient and 
Modern Christologies, on the doctrine of Two Natures in Christ, 
PP. 37, 5°, 52, 90, 165, and especially p. 173 ; see also Edwards’ 
and Stanley’s notes ad Joc. 


IV. 1. Odtws jpas AoyeLéoOw. The thought of ili. 5 is resumed, 
and the reproof of the tendency to ‘glory in men’ is completed 
by a positive direction as to the right attitude towards the pastors 
of the Church. ‘The Corinthians must regard them wt ministros 
Christi, non ut aeguales Christo (Primasius). ‘The ovrws probably 
refers to what follows, as in ili. 15, ix, 26. The 7as certainly 
refers to all who are charged with the ministry of the New 
Testament or Covenant (2 Cor. ili. 6). But we get good sense 
if we make ovrws refer to what precedes; ‘Remembering that 
we and everything else are yours, as you are Christ’s, let a man 
take account of us as men who are ministers of Christ.’ This 
throws a certain amount of emphasis on 7jas, the emphasis being 
removed from ovtws: but 7pas may receive emphasis, for it is 
the attitude of the Corinthians towards the Apostle and other 
teachers that is in question. 

dv@pwros. Almost equivalent to tus (xi. 28), but a gravior 
dicendi formula. ‘This use is rare in class. Grk. 

émypéras. Substituted for diaxovor in ili. 5. ‘The word origin- 
ally denoted those who row (épéooew) in the lower tier of a 
trireme, and then came to mean those who do anything under 
another, and hence simply ‘underlings.’* In the Church, St 
Luke (i.2) applies it to any service of the word ; later it was used 
almost technically of sub-deacons. See on Luke iv. 20, and 
Suicer, s.v. St Paul uses the word nowhere else. 

oikovépous. The oixovoos (olkos and vewew) was the respons- 
ible head of the establishment, assigning to each slave his duties 
and entrusted with the administration of the stores. He was a 
slave in relation to his master (Luke xii. 42), but the érirpdézos or 
overseer (Matt. xx. 8) in relation to the workmen (see on Luke 

* St Paul is probably not thinking of the derivation ; ‘Christ is the pilot ; 


we are rowers under Him.’ By Xpicrod he may mean ‘not of any earthly 
master,’ 


IV. 1-3] ‘HUMAN’ ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 75 


xii. 42 and xvi. 1; in the latter place, the oixovoyos seems to be a 
freeman). God is the Master (ili. 23) of the Christian household 
(1 Tim. ili. 15), and the stores entrusted to His stewards are the 
‘mysteries of God.’ These mysteries are the truths which the 
stewards are commissioned to teach (see on ii. 7). Between the 
Master and the stewards stands the Son (xv. 25; Heb. iii. 6), 
whose underlings the stewards are. See on oixovoyiav in Eph. 
i, 10 and Col. 1. 25. 


2. Gde. ‘Here,’ ze. ‘on earth and in human life,’ or perhaps 
‘in these circumstances.’ See on 1. 16 for Aouzov. 

{ntetrat x.t.A. The AV. cannot be improved upon; ‘It is 
required in stewards that a man be found faithful.’ See on i. to 
for this use of tva: the attempts to maintain its full ‘telic’ force 
here are too clumsy to deserve discussion: see further on v. 2, 
and compare etpe6j in 1 Pet. i. 7. 

motos. Cf. Luke xii. 42, xvi. 10; Num. xii. 7; 1 Sam. xxii. 
14: the meaning is ‘trustworthy.’ To be an oikovoyos is not 
enough.* 


@de (SN ABCD*FGP 17, e Vulg.) rather than 6 6é (D? EL). In 
Luke xvi. 25 there is a similar corruption in some texts. (nretrac (BL, 
defg Vulg. Copt. Syrr.) rather than (nreire (S$ AC D P and F G-nre). 
Here, as in @@epet (ili. 17), d e f g support the better reading against D EF G. 
Lachmann takes @ée at the end of v, 1,—an improbable arrangement. 


3. evo 8¢. The d¢ implies contrast to something understood, 
such as ‘I do not claim to be irresponsible ; inquiry will have to 
be made as to whether I am faithful; but (dé) the authority to 
which I bow is not yours, nor that of any human tribunal, but 
God’s.’ 

eis €Adxtotdv éottv. ‘It amounts to very little,’ ‘it counts for 
a very small matter.’ Cf. eis otdév AoywrOHvar (Acts xix. 27). 
He does not say that it counts for nothing. ‘I have often 
wondered how it is that every man sets less value on his own 
opinion of himself than on the opinion of others. So much 
more respect have we to what our neighbours think of us than to 
what we think of ourselves” (M. Aurelius, xii. 4). 

iva dvaxpi0@. ‘To be judged of,’ or ‘to be put on my trial,’ 
or ‘to pass your tribunal’ (see on ii. 14, 15). The verb is 
neutral, and suggests neither a favourable nor an unfavourable 
verdict. The dominant thought here, as in ii. 14, 15, is the 
competency of the tribunal. ‘The clause is almost equivalent to 
a simple infinitive, the ‘va defining the purport of a possible 
volition, whether of, for, or against what is named. He does 

* Chadwick, Zhe Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, p. 164f. He does not 


say ‘be judged trustworthy,’ but ‘ be found actually to be so.’ In 1 Pet. iv. 10 
every Christian is a steward. 


76 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 8, 4 


not mean that the Corinthians had thought of formally trying 
him, but that he cares little for what public opinion may decide 
about him. 

% bd dvOpwrivns hpepas. The phrase is in contrast to 7 
npeepa (iii. 13), which means the Day of the Lord, the Lord’s 
Judgment-Day. 7Zzat is the tribunal which the Apostle recog- 
nizes ; a Auman tribunal he does not care to satisfy. He may 
have had in his mind the use of a word equivalent to ‘day’ in 
the sense of a ‘court,’ which is found in Hebrew and in other 
languages.* ‘Daysman’ in Job ix. 33 means ‘arbitrator’ or 
‘umpire’: compare diem dicere alicui. From dies comes dieta= 
‘diet’; and hence, in German, Zag=‘ diet,’ as in Reichstag, 
Landtag. ‘Man’s judgment’ (AV., RV.) gives the sense suffi- 
ciently. Jerome is probably wrong in suggesting that the 
expression is a ‘Cilicism,’ one of St Paul’s provincialisms. 
Hlumanus dies dicitur in quo judicant homines, quia erit et dies 
Domini, in quo judicabit et Dominus (Herv.). Atto says much 
the same. 

GAN ob8€ epautdv dvaxpivw. ‘Nay, even my own verdict 
upon my conduct, with the knowledge which I have of its 
motives, is but a human judgment, incompetent definitely to 
condemn (1 John iii. 20), and still more incompetent to acquit.’ 7 
“We cannot fail to mark the contrast between this avowal of 
inability to judge oneself and the claim made in ch. ii. on 
behalf of the spiritual man, who judges all things. Self-know- 
ledge is more difficult than revealed truth” (Edwards): Ps. 
RIK, T'2. 


4. otSev yap épauta otvoida. ‘For (supposing that) I know 
nothing against myself,’ ‘Suppose that I am not conscious of 
any wrong-doing on my part.’ The Apostle is not stating a fact, 
but an hypothesis ; he was conscious of many faults; yet, even 
if he were not aware of any, that would not acquit him. No- 
where else in N.T. is the verb used zm ¢his sense (see Acts Vv. 2, 
xil. 12, xiv. 6): it means to ‘share knowledge,’ and here to 
‘know about oneself’ what is unknown to others. It expresses 
conscience in the recording sense. As conscience can condemn 
more surely than it can acquit, the word, when used absolutely, 
has more frequently a bad sense, and hence comes to mean to 
‘be conscious of guilt’: mil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa 

* Aesch. z# Ctes. p. 587; Els rpla mépn Siatpetrac } uepa, drav eloly 
yeagh rapavéuwv els Td dikacryptov, where 7 7juépa means the time of the 
tral, 

+ We might have expected dAX’ olde atrds éuavrdv davaxplyw, but the 
meaning is clear. He does not base his refusal to pass judgment on himself 


on the difficulty of being impartial. Such a judgment, however impartial and 
just, could not be final, and therefore would be futile. 


IV. 4, 5] ‘HUMAN’ ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 77 


(Hor. £. 1. i. 61) illustrates the same kind of meaning in the 
Latin equivalent. See on 7 xai, Rom. ii. 15. The archaic ‘I 
know nothing éy myself’ (AV.) has caused the words to be 
seriously misunderstood. In sixteenth-century English ‘by’ 
might mean ‘against,’ and means ‘against’ here. Latimer says, 
“Sometimes I say more 4y him than I am able to prove; this is 
slandering” (i. 518). Jonson, in the Silent Woman, “An 
intelligent woman, if she know 4y herself the least defect, will 
be most curious to hide it” (iv. 1), which is close to the use 
here. T. L. O. Davies (Bidle Words, p. 81) gives these and 
other examples.* 

GAN’ ovk év toUtw. ‘Nevertheless, not hereby,’ ‘But yet not 
in this fact,’ ‘not therefore.’ This év rovrw is frequent in St John, 
especially in the First Epistle and in connexion with ywooxkeww 
(John xiii. 35; 1 John ii. 3, 5, ili. 16, 19, 24, iv. 2, 13, v. 2), but 
also with other verbs (John xv. 8, xvi. 30). The ov« is placed 
away from its verb with special emphasis ; sed zon in hoc (Vulg.), 
non per hoc (Beza). Without difference of meaning, Ignatius 
(Rom. 5) has AN od wapa Todro dedixaiwpar. 

SeSixatwpar. ‘Am I acquitted.” The word is used in a 
general sense, not in its technical theological sense. To intro- 
duce the latter here (Meyer, Beet, etc.) is to miss the drift of the 
passage, which deals, not with the question as to how man 
is justified in God’s sight, but with the question as to who is 
competent to stt in gudgment on a man’s work or life. St Paul is 
not dealing with the question of his own personal ‘justification 
by faith,’ as though he said ‘I am justified not by this, but in 
some other way’: he is saying in the first person, what would 
apply equally to any one else, that an unaccusing conscience does 
not fer se mean absence of guilt. 

6 8é dvaxpivwy pe Kupids éotwv. ‘But he that judgeth me is 
the Lord,’ z.e. Christ, as the next verse shows. The d¢ goes back 
to ovdé éuavrov avaxpivw, what intervenes being a parenthesis ; 
‘not I myself, but our Lord, is the judge.’ 


5. dote. With the imperative (see on iii. 21), ‘So then.’ 

py te Kptvere. ‘Cease to pass any judgment,’ or ‘Make a 
practice of passing no judgment’ (pres. imper.). The v7 is a 
cognate accusative, such as we have in John vii. 24. ‘As far as 
I am concerned, you may judge as you please, it is indifferent 
to me; but, as Christians, you should beware of passing any 
judgment on any one, until the Judge of all has made all things 
clear. All anticipation is vain.’ 

mpd xatpod. ‘Before the fitting time,’ or ‘the appointed 


* The use is perhaps not yet extinct in Yorkshire, ‘‘I know nothing dy 
him” might still be heard for ‘‘I know nothing against him,” 


78 FIRST EPISTLE.TO THE CORINTHIANS [IVv. 5 


time,’ when ot dyiot tov Kéopov xpwovtow (vi. 2). Katpds has 
no exact equivalent in English, French, or German. Cf. Matt. 
Viil. 29. 

gos av €\6n. The addition or omission of ay after éws in the 
N.T. is somewhat irregular, and this fact precludes any sure 
generalization as to particular shades of meaning. In later 
Greek the force of av is weakened, and therefore the difference 
between its presence and absence is lessened. Here, not the 
coming, but the time of it, is doubtful; ‘till the Advent, when- 
ever that may be.’ See Milligan on 2 Thess. il. 7, where there 
is no av, and Edwards here. In Rev. ii. 25, axpu ot av Hw, it is 
doubtful whether 7£ is fut. indic. or aor. subj. At the Day of 
Judgment they will take part in judging (vi. 2, 3), with all the 
facts before them. 

és kat gdwricet. ‘Who shall both throw light upon,’ ‘shall 
illumine,’ /ucem tnferet in (Beng.). But the difference between 
‘bringing light to’ and ‘bringing to light’ is not great. The xaé 
is probably ‘both,’ not ‘also’; but if ‘also,’ the meaning is, ‘ will 
come to judge and also will illumine,’ which is less probable. 
Pwrilw points to the source of the revelation.’ 

Ta KpuTTa TOU okdtous. Adbscondita tenebarum (Vulg.); occulta 
tenebrarum = res tenebris occultatas (Beza). The genitive may be 
possessive or characterizing, ‘the hidden things which darkness 
holds,’ or ‘the hidden things whose nature is dark.’ The point 
is, not that what will be revealed is morally bad, although that 
may be suggested, but that hitherto they have been quite secret, 
hidden, it may be, from the person’s own conscience. 

kal davepdcer. Two things are necessary for an unerring 
judgment of human actions,—a complete knowledge of the facts, 
and full insight into the motives. These the Lord will apply 
when He comes; and to attempt to judge men without these 
indispensable qualifications is futile arrogance. f®avepow points 
to the resu/¢t of the revelation. 

Kal tote 6 €ratvos. ‘And ¢hen, and not till then, ‘Ae measure of 
praise that is due will come to each from God.’ ‘He will have 
his praise’ (RV.), what rightly belongs to him, which may be 
little or none, and will be very different from the praise of 
partizans here. We have the same thought in 2 Cor. x. 18; 
Rom. ii. 29 ; and Clem. Rom. reproduces it, Cov. 30. Compare 
pods, iil. 14, and 6 piocOds, Rom. iv. 4, and see Hort on 1 Pet. 
i. 7, Ps 43: 

dd tod Geod. At the end, with emphasis; the award is final, 
as azo intimates; there is no further court of appeal: and it is 
from God that Christ has authority to judge the world (John 
v.27). Cf. 2 Esdr. xvi. 62-65. With éxdor» compare the fivefold 
€xagros in iil. 5-13. 


IV. 6-21] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 79 


DEFG, Aug. omit the 8s before caf. D omits the rod before Qeod. 
The conjecture of twé for dé before rod Oeod has no probability of being 
right. Christ is the apiouévos brd Tov Oeod xpirrs (Acts x. 42): cf. wéAdex 
kplvew Th olkovuevny év dvdpl @ dpicev (Acts xvii. 31): so that the judg- 
ments pronounced by Christ are amd rod Qecod. 


IV. 6-21. Personal Application of the foregoing Passage 
(III. 5-IV. 5), and Close of the Subject of the Dis- 
sensions. 


My aim in all this ts to correct party-spirit and conceit. 
Do compare your self-glorification with the humiliations of 
your teachers. This admonition comes from a father whom 
you ought to wmitate. I really am coming to you. Is tt to 
be in severity or tn gentleness ? 


° These comments I have modified in form, so as to apply to 
myself and Apollos, without including others, for you certainly 
have made party-leaders of him and me. And I have done this 
for your sakes, not ours, in order that by us as examples you 
may learn the meaning of the words, Go not beyond what is 
written ; in short, to keep any one of you from speaking boast- 
fully in favour of the one teacher to the disparagement of the 
other. ‘For, my friend, who gives you the right to prefer one 
man to another and proclaim Paul and Apollos as leaders? 
And what ability do you possess that was not given to you by 
God? You must allow that you had it as a gift from Him. 
Then why do you boast as if you had the credit of acquiring it ? 
8 No doubt you Corinthians are already in perfect felicity ; already 
you are quite rich; without waiting for us poor teachers, you 
have come to your kingdom! And I would to God that you 
had come to the Kingdom, that we also might be there with you! 
But we are far from that happy condition. For it seems to me 
that God has exhibited us His Apostles last of all, as men 
doomed to death are the last spectacle in a triumphal procession : 
for a spectacle we are become to the universe, to the whole 
amphitheatre of angels and men. 1° We poor simpletons go on 
with the foolishness of preaching Christ, while you in your 
relation to Him are men of sagacity. We feel our weakness ; 
you are so strong as to stand alone. You have the glory, and 
we the contempt. 1! Up to this very moment we go hungry, 
thirsty, and scantily clothed; we get plenty of hard blows and 


80 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS _ [IV. 6 


have no proper home; !and we have to work hard with our 
hands to earn our daily bread. Men revile us, and we bless 
them ; they persecute us, and we are patient; they slander us, 
and we merely deprecate. 1% We have been treated as the scum 
of the earth, the refuse of society, and are treated so still. 

147 am not writing in this tone to put you to shame: you are 
my dearly loved children, and I am showing you where you are 
wrong. ! For you may have any number of instructors in Christ, 
yet you have not more than one father: for in Christ Jesus it was 
I, and no one else, who begat you through the Glad-tidings 
which I brought you. 1°I have, therefore, the right to beseech 
you to follow my steps. 17 And because I wish you to follow my 
example, I have sent Timothy to you; for he also is a child of 
mine, dearly loved as you are, loyal and trusty in the Lord, and 
he will bring back to your remembrance the simple and lowly 
ways which I have as a Christian teacher, not only at Corinth, 
but everywhere and in every Church. 1!8Some of you boastfully 
declared that my sending Timothy meant that I did not dare to 
come myself; so they would do as they pleased. 1% But I do 
mean to come, and that soon, to you, if the Lord pleases; and 
I will then take cognizance, not of what these inflated boasters 
say, but of what they can do. Have they any spiritual power ? 
20For the Kingdom of God is not a thing of words, but of 
spiritual power. 2! Which is it to be then? Am I to come to 
you rod in hand, or in love and a spirit of gentleness ? 

After a brief, plain statement of his purpose (6, 7) in the 
preceding exposition of the Pastoral Office, the Apostle severely 
rebukes the inflated glorying of his readers (8-13), and then, in 
a more tender strain (14-16), but still not without sternness 
(17-21), explains the mission of Timothy, the precursor of his 
own intended visit. 

6. Taira 8€. ‘Now these things,’ viz. the whole of the 
remarks from iii. 5 onwards, the dé introducing the conclusion 
and application of the whole. 

G&SeXpoi. As ini. Io, lil. 1. 

peteoxynpdtica. ‘I put differently,’ ‘transferred by a figure’ ; 
lit. ‘altered the arrangement’ (cxjya). The Apostle means 
that he used the names of Apollos and himself to illustrate a 
principle which might, but for reasons of tact, have been more 
obviously illustrated by other names. In LXX the verb is 
found once (4 Mac. ix. 22), in N.T. in Paul only; of false 


Iv.6] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 81 


apostles fashioning themselves into Apostles of Christ, like 
Satan fashioning himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. xi. 13-15) ; 
and of the glorious change of our body of humiliation (Phil. 
ili. 21). The meaning here is different from both these, and the 
difference of meaning in the three passages turns upon the 
implied sense of ox7jma in each case. See Lightfoot ad Zc. and 
also on Phil. ii. 7 and iii, 21; Trench, Syz. § Lxx. ; Hastings, 
DB. ut. p. 7. In the present passage there seems to be a 
reference to the reforical sense of oxjpa (=figura) to denote a 
veiled allusion. ‘The meaning here will be, ‘I have transferred 
these warnings to myself and Apollos for the purpose of a 
covert allusion, and that for your sakes, that in our persons you 
may get instruction.’ The petacynparicpos, therefore, consists 
in putting forward the names of those not really responsible for 
the oracers instead of the names of others who were more to 
blame.* 

év Hiv padre. ‘ May learn in us as an object-lesson,’ ‘in our 
case may learn.’ They could read between the lines. 

TO ph bwép & yéypamtar. The article, as often, has almost the 
effect of inverted commas; ‘the principle’ or ‘the lesson’— 
“Never go beyond,” etc. The maxim is given in an elliptical 
form without any verb, as in ne sutor ultra crepidam: cf. v. 1, 
xl. 24; 2 Pet. ii. 22. Here, as elsewhere, some texts insert a 
verb in order to smooth the ellipse. By & yéyparra: the Apostle 
means passages of Scripture such as those which he has quoted, 
i. 19, 31, lll. 19, 20. It is possible that there was a maxim of 
this kind current among the Jews, like pdév dyav among the 
Greeks. It is strange that any one should suppose that 
a yéypamrae can refer to what St Paul himself has written or 
intends to write, or to the commands of our Lord.t It was 
perhaps a Rabbinical maxim. ; 

iva ph «.t-A. This second iva introduces the consequence 
expected from pa6yre, and so the ultimate purpose of pere- 
oxnpatira, viz. to avoid all sectarian divisions. The proposal to 
take iva in the local sense of ‘ where,’ ‘in which case,’ ‘ wodei,’ 
may be safely dismissed. Even in class. Grk. this sense of iva 
is chiefly poetical, and it is quite out of keeping with N.T. 
usage and with the context here. It is less easy to be certain 
whether ¢votodcGe is the present indicative, which would be very 
irregular after iva, or an irregularly contracted subjunctive. 
Gal. iv. 7 is the only certain instance in N.T. of ta with the 


* That there was no jealousy or rivalry between St Paul and Apollos is 
clear from iii. 6, 8-10, xvi. 12. It is possible that it was the factious conduct 
of his partizans that drove Apollos from Corinth (Renan, S. Paul, p. 375). 

+ Rudolf Steck would refer this to Rom, xii, 3; an extraordinary con- 
jecture, 


6 


82 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 6, 7 


present indicative; but some of the best editors admit it in 
John xvii. 3; Tit. ii. 4; 1 John v. 20. The double iva is Pauline ; 
Gal. iii. 14, Iv. 5. 

The sense is an expansion of ‘glorying in men’ (iii. 21): 
party-spirit, essentially egoist, cries up one leader at the expense 
of another leader. Some take évos and €répov, not as leaders, but 
as members, of the respective parties. This is not the probable 
meaning. To cry up a favourite leader of your own choosing is 
to betray an inflated self-conceit. See on v. 18. With efs iaep 
rov évds may be contrasted oixodopeire els tov éva (1 Thess. v. 11), 
where the opposite cause and effect are indicated, the union, 
which results from mutual edification. Here trép means ‘on 
behalf of’ or ‘in favour of.’ We have a similar use of imép and 
xara in Rom. vill. 31. See Blass, § 45. 2. 


For év quiv, D 17, Copt. read év tpiv. trép d (NS ABC P 17) is to be 
preferred to drép 6 (DEFGL). After yéyparra, N* D?LP, Syrr. 
Copt. Arm. AV. insert ¢poveiv to avoid the ellipse: 8* AB D* EFG, 
Vulg. RV. omit. Some editors propose to omit 76 wy brép & yéypamra as 
a marginal gloss. The sentence is intelligible without these words, but a 
gloss would have taken some other form. The ¢povetv may come from 
Rom. xii. 3. 


7. tis yap ce Siaxpiver; The ydp introduces a reason why 
such conceit is out of place; ‘For who sees anything special in 
you?’ The verb has a variety of meanings (see Acts xv. 9 and 
on ovvxpivew in il. 13), and these meanings are linked by the 
idea of ‘separate’ in one sense or another: here it means to 
distinguish favourably from others. ‘Who gives you the right to 
exalt one and depress another? No one has given you such a 
right: then do you claim it is an inherent right?’ Zw, gut 
amplius te accepisse gloriaris, quis te ab eo qui minus accepit 
separavit, nisi ts gui tibt dedit quod alteri non dedit? (Atto). 

tl 8€ €xeus 6 odK EXaBes. The d€ adds another home-thrust, 
another searching question. ‘Let us grant that you have some 
superiority. Is it inherent? You know that you have nothing 
but what you have received. Your good things were all of them 
given to you.’ Origen suggests that the question may mean, 
‘Why do you pretend to have a gift which you have not received 
from God?’ But he prefers the usual interpretation. The 
question is a favourite one with Cyril of Alexandria, who quotes 
it nine times in his commentary on St John. 

et 8€ kai é\aBes. ‘But if thou drdst receive it.’ The xai 
throws an emphasis on éAafes, and «i xai represents the insist- 
ence on what is fact (2 Cor. iv. 3, v. 16, xii. 11), while Kat e¢ 
represents an assumed possibility ; but it is not certain that this 
distinction always holds good in Paul. 

It has been urged that the usual interpretation of éAaBes as 


IV. 7,8] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 83 


‘received from God, the Giver of all good gifts’ is not suitable 
to the context ; and that the Apostle means that such Christian 
wisdom as the Corinthians possessed was not their own making, 
but came to them through ministry of their teachers. But, after 
iil. 5-7, 21 (cf. xii. 6, xv. 10), St Paul would not be likely to make 
any such claim. The main point is, ‘whatever superiority you 
may have is not your own product, it was a gift’; and St Paul 
was much more likely to mean that it was God’s gift, than any- 
thing derived from himself and Apollos. 

The question which he asks strikes deeper than the immediate 
purpose of this passage. It is memorable in the history of 
theology for the revolution which it brought about in the 
doctrine of Grace. In A.D. 396, in the first work which he 
wrote as a bishop, Augustine tells us: ‘To solve this question 
we laboured hard in the cause ef the freedom of man’s will, but 
the Grace of God won the day,” and he adds that this text was 
decisive (Aetract. 1. i. 1; see also De divers. guaest. ad Simplict- 
anum, i.). Ten years before the challenge of Pelagius, the study 
of St Paul’s writings, and especially of this verse and of Rom. 
ix. 16, had crystallized in his mind the distinctively Augustinian 
doctrines of man’s total depravity, of irresistible grace, and of 
absolute predestination. 

The fundamental thought here is that the teachers, about 
whom the Corinthians ‘gloried,’ were but ministers of what was 
the gift of God. The boasting temper implied forgetfulness of 
this fact. It treated the teachers as exhibitors of rhetorical skill, 
and as ministering to the /as¢e of a critical audience, which was 
entitled to class the teachers according to the preferences of this 
or that hearer. “EAafes here coincides with émrevoare in iii. 5. 


8. The Apostle now directly attacks the self-esteem of his 
readers in a tone of grave irony. ‘ You may well sit in judgment 
upon us, from your position of advanced perfection, whence you 
can watch us struggling painfully to the heights which you have 
already scaled.’ Haec verba per troniam dicta sunt: non enim 
sunt affirmantis, sed indignantis, et commoti animt. Tllos quippe 
regnare, saturatos et divites factos, in quibus superius diversa vitia 
et plures errores redarguit (Atto). It spoils the irony of the 
assumed concession to take the three clauses which follow as 
questions (WH.). ‘That the three argumentative questions 
should be followed by three satirical affirmations is full of point. 
Six consecutive questions would be wearisome and somewhat 
flat. 

78y Kexopeopevor éore, 7/5y mAouTHGATE, xwpls hav éBacihedoate. 
The RV. might have given each of the three clauses a note of 
exclamation. ‘The Vulg. gives one to the last, and it covers the 


84 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [Iv. 8 


other two. It is evident that the three verbs form a climax, and 
the last gives the key to the allusion. These highly blessed 
Corinthians are already in the Kingdom of God, enjoying its 
banquets, its treasures, and its thrones. The verbs stand for 
the satisfaction of all desires in the Messianic Kingdom 
(Luke xxii. 29, 30; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 12). Theattitude 
of the zedvowpevo. amounted to a claim to be already in 
possession of all that this Kingdom was to bring. They bave 
got a private millennium of their own. Like the 747 in the two 
first clauses, xwpis jay is emphatic. ‘Without us, who taught 
you all that you know of the Gospel, and who are still labouring 
to enter the Kingdom, you are as Kings in the Kingdom.’ 
‘Without us’ does not mean ‘ without our aid,’ but ‘ without our 
company.’ ‘The contrast is between the fancied beatitude of the 
Corinthians and the actual condition of the Apostles. The 
Corinthians pose as perfected saints ; their teachers are still very 
far indeed from perfection.* 

In zwAovrety and BaciAevew we have a coincidence with the 
language of the Stoics, as in ili. 21. There ravra tipudayr éoriv has 
parallels in Zeno and Seneca; emittere hanc det vocem, Haec 
omnia mea sunt (De Benef. vil. ii. 3). But, whether or no 
St Paul is consciously using Stoic expressions, there is no 
resemblance in meaning. The thought of victory over the 
world by incorporation into Christ is far removed from that of 
independence of the world through personal airapxefa. Here 
again we have the difference between the true and the false 
copia. 

kat dpeddv ye éBacthedoate. In this late Greek this un- 
augmented second aorist has become a mere particle, an 
exclamation to express a wish as to what might have happened, 
but has not, or what might happen, but is not expected. Hence 
it is followed by the indicative without av. In LXX it is often 
followed by the aorist, as here, especially in the phrase é@eAov 
aweBavopev. In 2 Cor. xi. 1 and Gal. v. 12, as here, the wish 
has a touch of irony. The yé emphasizes the wish; ‘ As far as 
my feelings are concerned, would that your imaginary royalty 
were real, for then our hard lot would be at an end.’ 

iva . . . ouvBaoiievowper. In ironical contrast to yxwpis 
jpav. ‘You seem to have arrived at the goal far in front of us 

* Chrysostom points out that ‘‘piety is insatiable.” A Christian can 
never be satisfied with his condition ; and for those who were as yet scarcely 
beginners to suppose that they had reached the end, was childish. 
Bachmann quotes the well-known Logion preserved by Clement of 
Alexandria (704 ed. Potter, and found in a somewhat different form in 
Oxyrhynchus papyri; ov mavcerat 6 (nTGv Ews dy eiipy, ebpwv dé Gay Bijoerat, 


GauBnbels 5é Baoiievoe, Bacthevoas 5é émavamaverar. See Deissmann, Light, 
p- xiii. 


Iv. 8, 9| APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 85 


poor teachers: indeed I wish that it were so, so that we might hope 
to follow and share your triumph.’ The only other place in 
N.T. in which ovvBaowWevev occurs is 2 Tim. ii. 12, where it is 
used of reigning with Christ. 


9. Sox ydp, 6 Ocos .. . dwéderev. ‘For it seems to me, 
God has set forth us, the Apostles, as last.’ There is a great 
pageant in which the Apostles form the ignominious finale, con- 
sisting of doomed men, who will have to fight in the arena till 
they are killed. St Paul is thinking chiefly of himself; but, to 
avoid the appearance of egoism, he associates himself with other 
Apostles. Perhaps daédeéev is usedin a technical sense ; ‘ placed 
upon the scene,’ ‘made a show of,’ ‘exhibited’; or, possibly, 
‘nominated,’ ‘proclaimed,’ as if being doomed men was an 
office or distinction: cf. edéovto dzodeifal twa aitav Baoiréa 
(Joseph. Avé. vi. iil. 3). This latter meaning increases the 
irony of the passage. In 2 Thess. ii. 4, drodexvivta seems to 
be used in this sense. 

ds émBavatious. The adjective occurs nowhere else in N.T:; 
but in LXX of Bel and the Dragon 31 it is used of the con- 
demned conspirators who were thrown to the lions, two at a time, 
daily ; tay ériBavatiwy cwpata dvo. Dionysius of Halicarnassus 
(A.&. vii. 35), about B.c. 8, uses it of those who were thrown 
from the Tarpeian rock. Tertullian (De /udic. 14) translates it 
here, veluti destiarios, which is giving it too limited a meaning. 
Cf. éOnpiopaynoa, xv. 32. Spectandos proposuit, ut morti addictos 
(Beza).* 

St. Odatpov eyernOypev. ‘Seeing that we are become a 
spectacle’ ; explaining ‘ exhibited (or ‘ nominated’) us as doomed 
men.’ Here 6éatpov=Oéaya: the place of seeing easily comes 
to be substituted for what is seen there, and also for oi @earat, as 
we say ‘the house’ for the audience or spectators. Cf. Gearpifo- 
pevol, spectaculum facti (Vulg. both there and here), Heb. x. 33. 

76 kdopw. ‘The intelligent universe,’ which is immediately 
specified by the two anarthrous substantives which follow : 
angels and men make up the xéopos to which the Apostles are 
a spectacle. See on xiii. 1. It is perhaps true to say that, 
wherever angels are mentioned in N.T., good angels are always 
meant, unless something is added in the context to intimate the 
contrary, asin Matt. xxv. 41; 2 Cor. xii. 7; Rev. xii. 7, 9, etc. 
Godet remarks here that of course /es mauvats ne sont pas exclus, 
and this is also the opinion of Augustine and Herveius. 


* The Epistle contains a number of illustrations taken from heathen life ; 
here and vii. 31, the theatre ; the idol- feasts, Vill. 10, Xx. 20% racing and 
boxing i in the games, with a crown as a prize, ix. 24-27 ; the syssitia, x. 27; 
the fighting with wild beasts, xv. 32. 


86 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 9-11 


Strangely enough, Atto supposes that St Paul means evil angels 
only. The Apostle thinks of the dyyeAou as wondering spectators 
of the vicissitudes of the.Church militant here on earth (cf. 
Eph. iii. 19; 1 Pet. i. 12). Origen thinks of them as drawn to 
the strange sight of a man still clothed in flesh wrestling with 
principalities and powers, etc. 


After dox& ydp, 8° B’ D EL P add 6m: S* A B* C D* F G omit. 


10. *pets pwpot. . . duets B€ dpdvpo. Lst tncrepatio cum 
ironia (Herv.). ‘The three antitheses refer respectively to teaching, 
demeanour, and worldly position. The Apostles were ‘fools on 
account of Christ’ (2 Cor. iv. 11; Phil. iii. 7), because it was 
owing to their preaching Christ that the world regarded them as 
crazy (i. 23; Acts xxvi. 24). The Corinthians were ‘wise in 
Christ,’ because they maintained that as Christians they had 
great powers of discernment and possessed the true wisdom ; éa 
in servos, év in consortes convenit (Beng.): tatra éywv cipwvixds 
mpoerperev adtovs yeverOar ppovimous ev Xpiore@ (Orig.). Cf. x. 15. 

dpets evBogor, Hpets 8€ Gro. ‘The order is here inverted, not 
merely to avoid monotony, but in order to append to pets 
dtizo. the clauses which expand it. Chiasmus is common in 
these Epistles (iii. 17, vill. 13, xill. 2; 2 Cor. iv. 3, vi. 8, ix. 6, 
x. 12, etc.). "Evdogos is one of the 103 words which are found 
only in Paul and Luke in N.T. (Hawkins, Hor. Syn. p. 191). 


11. dyxpt tis Gpte Gpas. Their dria is without respite, and 
is unbroken, up to the moment of writing. ‘This is emphatically 
restated at the end of v. 13: privation, humiliation, and utter 
contempt is their continual lot. 

yupvitedopev. ‘We are scantily clothed’; év Yiye Kat yupvd- 
tyre (2 Cor. xi. 27). The word generally means ‘to go light-armed’ 
(Plut., Dio. Cass.) ; it occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX, 
Cf. Jas. ii. 15, where yupvds means ‘scantily clad.’ 

Kohagifdpe8a. ‘We are buffeted,’ ‘are struck with the fist.’ 
The verb is late, and probably colloquial (1 Pet. ii. 20; Mark 
xiv. 65; Matt. xxvi. 67). The substantive xoAados is said to be 
Doric = Attic xovévAos. The verb is possibly chosen rather than 
dépewv (ix. 26; 2 Cor. xi. 20), or TUrrew (Acts xxiii. 2), or drwmid- 
few (ix. 26, 27), or xovdvAtfev (Amos ii. 7; Mal. iii. 5), to mark 
the treatment of a s/ave: velut servi ; adeo non regnamus (Beng.). 
Seneca, in the last section of the Afocolocyntosts, says that 
Caesar successfully claimed a man as his slave after producing 
witnesses who had seen the man beaten by Caesar fragris, ferulls, 
colaphis. In 2 Cor. xii. 7 the verb is used of the dyyeAos Sarava, 
‘buffeting’ the Apostle. 

dotatoduev. ‘Are homeless,’ ‘have not where to lay our 


IV. 11-13] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 87 


head’ (Matt. viii. 20; Luke ix. 58), The verb occurs nowhere 
else in N.T. or LXX, but is used by Aquila for doreyos in Isa. 
lviii. 7. It certainly does not mean ¢xstadiles sumus (Vulg.), but 
nusquam habemus sedem (Primasius). The Apostles fugabantur 
ab infidelibus de loco in locum (Atto); éAavvopeba yap (Chrys.). 
Their life had no repose ; they were vagrants, and were stigmatized 
as such. 


yuuvirevouev is accepted by all editors, L alone reading yuyynrevoper, 
Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch., p. 81. 


12. kom@pev épy. t. iSiats yxepoiv. Again and again he 
mentions this (ix. 6; 2 Cor. xi. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8; 
ef. Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34). See Knowling on Acts xviii. 3, Deiss- 
mann, Light, p. 317, and Ramsay, St Pauw/, pp. 34-36. He had 
worked for his own living when he was at Corinth, and he was 
doing this at Ephesus at the time of writing. He must maintain 
his independence. Graviter peccat, et libertatem arguendi amittit, 
qui ab eo aliquid accipit, qui propterea tribuit ne redarguat (Atto). 
The plural may be rhetorical, but it probably includes other 
teachers who did the like. Greeks despised manual labour; 
St Paul glories in it. 

AorBopoupevor edhoyodper, Siwxdpevor dvexdueOa. He is perhaps 
not definitely alluding to the Lord’s commands (Matt. v. 44; 
Luke vi. 27), but he is under their influence. Here again, Greek 
prejudice would be against him. In the preliminary induction 
which Aristotle (Aza/. Post. 11. xii. 21) makes for the definition 
of peyaXowuxia, he asks what it is that such peyadAcyvxor as 
Achilles, Ajax, and Alcibiades have in common, and answers, 7d 
py avéxerOar bBprCopevor, In his full description (Z¢th. Mic. 1. 
ill. 17, 30), of the high-minded man, he says that he zdpzav 
éAvtywpyoer the contempt of others, and that he is not prnotkaxos; 
but this is because he is conscious that he never deserves ill, and 
because he does not care to bear anything, good or ill (and least 
of all ill), long in mind. Just as the Greek would think that the 
Apostle’s working with his own hands stamped him as Bavavoos, 
so he would regard his manner of receiving abuse and injury as 
fatal to his being accounted peyadoyvxos; he must be an abject 
person. 


18. Sucpypovpevor. In 1 Mac. vii. 41 the verb is used of the 
insults of Rabshakeh as the envoy of Sennacherib, but it is not 
found elsewhere in N.T. 

mapaxadodpev. ‘We deprecate,’ odsecramur (Vulg.). The 
verb is very frequent in N.T., with many shades of meaning, 
radiating from the idea of ‘calling to one’s side’ in order to 
speak privately, to gain support. Hence such meanings as 
‘exhort,’ ‘entreat,’ ‘instruct,’ ‘comfort.’ ‘Exhort’ is certainly 


88 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 18, 14 


not the meaning here, as if insulting language was requited with 
a sermon; yet Origen and Basil seem to take it so. To give the 
soft answer that turns away wrath (Prov. xv. 1) may be right, but 
it is not acommon meaning of wapaxaXdetv. Tyndale and other 
early versions have ‘we pray,’ which again is not the meaning, if 
‘pray’ means ‘ pray to God.’ * 

as meptkabdppata. The uncompounded xafappa is more 
common in both the senses which the two forms of the word 
have incommon. These are (1) ‘sweepings,’ rubbish, and, (2) 
as in Prov. xxi. 18, ‘scapegoats,’ ze. victinis, pracula, lustramina, 
used as exftationis pretium, to avert the wrath of the gods. At 
Athens, in times of plague or similar visitations, certain outcasts 
were flung into the sea with the formula, zepinya jpav yevov 
(Suidas), to expiate the pollution of the community. These were 
worthless persons, and hence the close connexion between the 
two meanings. Demosthenes, in the De Corona, addresses 
Aeschines, © xdé@appya, as a term of the deepest insult. It is not 
quite certain which of the two meanings is right here ; nor does 
the coupling with zepiynpa settle the matter, for that word also 
is used in two similar senses. Godet distinguishes the two words 
by saying that zrepuxafappara are the dust that is swept up from 
a floor and zrepiWypa the dirt that is rubbed or scraped off an 
object. Neither word occurs elsewhere in N.T. On the whole, 
it is probable that neither word has here the meaning of ‘ scape- 
goat’ or ‘ransom’ (azrodvtpwors): and in Tobit v. 18 zepinpa 
is probably ‘refuse’ (AV., RV.). See Lightfoot on zepivnpa 
(Ign. Zph. 8), and Heinichen on Eus. H.Z. vu. xxii. 7, AZelet. 
xv. p. 710, who shows that in the third century zepijypa cov 
had become a term of formal compliment, ‘your humble and 
devoted servant.’ See Zp. Barn. 4, 6. 

Tod kéopou . . . mavtwy. Whatever the meaning of the two 
words, these genitives give them the widest sweep, and zravrwy is 
neuter (AV., RV.), unless the meaning of ‘scapegoat’ is given 


to repiynpa. ft 


bvepnuovpevor (R* AC P 17) rather than Bracdynpotwevor (SBD EF 
GL). The internal evidence turns the scale. It is more probable that 
the unusual dvcg. would be changed to the common fdac¢, than vice 
wersa. 


14. Ovx évrpémwv pads. The severity of tone ends as abruptly 
as it began (v. 8). Aspera blandis mitigat, ut salutaris medicus. 


* Plato (Crzto 49) puts into the mouth of Socrates; ‘‘ We ought not to 
retaliate or render evil for evil to any one, whatever evil we may have suffered 
from him. . . . Warding off evil by evil is never right.” But returning good 
for evil goes far beyond that. 

+ Tertullian and the Vulgate transliterate, Aerépsema; Beza has sordes, 
Luther Fegopfer (Auswurf). ; 


Iv. 14, 15] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 89 


These sudden changes of tone are much more common in Paul 
than in other N.T. writers. The section that follows (14-21), 
with its mingled tenderness and sternness—both alike truly 
paternal, forms a worthy colophon to the whole discussion of the 
oxiopatra, The root-meaning of évrpérewv is perhaps ‘to turn in,’ 
and so to make a person ‘hang his head,’ as a sign, either of 
reverence (Matt. xxi. 37; Luke xviii. 2, 4; Heb. xii. 9) or of 
shame, as here (cf. évrpo7n, vi. 5, xv. 34). In these senses it is 
frequent in late writers, in LXX, and in Paul. The participle 
expresses the spirit in which the Apostle writes ; ‘not as shaming 
you,’ ‘not as making you abashed.’ What he had written might 
well ‘make them hang their heads,’ but to effect that was not his 
purpose in writing; he wrote to bring home to their hearts a 
solemn fatherly warning. 

vou§erav. ‘The duty of a parent, as appears from Eph. vi. 4.* 
Excepting in a speech of St Paul (Acts xx. 31), vouOerety and 
vovleoia do not occur in N.T. outside the Epistles of St Paul, 
and they cover all four groups. Nov@ere?v, ‘to put in mind,’ has 
always a touch of sternness, if not of blame; ‘to admonish,’ or 
‘warn.’ We have voverety trois xaxds mpacoovtas (Aesch. Pr. 
264), and voverety xovdvAos (Aristoph. Vesf. 254). Plato 
(Gorg. 4792) combines it with xoAdfew. See Abbott on Eph. 
vi. 4 and Col. i. 28. 

vovberav (NAC P 17, RV.) rather than vovJero (BDEFGL, Vulg. 


AV.); but the evidence is not decisive. Lachm, and Treg. prefer 
vouveTo. 


15. éd4v ydp. The reason for his taking on himself this duty ; 
‘If, as time goes on, ye should have in turn an indefinite number 
of tutors in Christ, yet ye w7// never have had but one father.’ 
The conditional clause, with a pres. subjunct. and dy, in the 
protasis implies futurity as regards the apodosis. As there is but 
one planting and one laying of the foundation-stone (iii. 6, 10), 
so the child can have but one father. 

Tatsaywyols . + . év Xpiord. ‘The words are closely con- 
nected. Without év Xpior@ to qualify it, tatdaywyovs would have 
been too abrupt, if not too disparaging. There is no hint that 
they have already had too many. The zawdaywyds (Gal. iii. 24) 
was not a teacher, but the trusty slave who acted as tutor or 
guardian and escorted them to and from school, and in general 
took care of those whom the father had Jdegotten.t| He might be 


* Cf. rovrous ws marip vovberGy édoxluacas (Wisd. xi. 10), and voudericet 
Sixacov ws vldv ayamrjoews (Pss. Sol. xiii. 8). Excepting Timothy (v. 17 ; 
2 Tim. i, 2), St Paul nowhere else callsany one réxvov dyarnrév, Spiritualis 
paternitas singularem necessitudinem et affectionem conjunctam habet, prae 
omni alia propinguitate (Beng.). 

t+ See Ramsay, Galatians, p. 383; Smith, Dict. of Ant. ii, p. 307. The 
same usage is found in papyri. 


90 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [Iv. 15-17 


more capable, and even more affectionate, than the father, but 
he could never become father. The frequent €v Xpiord gives 
“the ideal sphere of action” (Ellicott).* 

GAN’ 0b todos watépas. ‘Still (viii. 7) not many fathers.’ 
The verb to be understood must be future, for the possibility of 
puptot aidaywyoi is future : ‘however many these may be, yet ye 
will not have (or, have had) many fathers.’ 

év yap Xptor@ “I. The whole process, first and last, is é 
XpiorG.¢ That was the sphere, while the Gospel was the means 
(dua tod evayy.). The two pronouns, éy® tas, are in emphatic 
proximity; ‘whoever may have been the parent of other Churches, 
it was I who in Christ begat you.’ The thought is that of éyw 
e@vrevoa (iii. 6) and of OepéAvoy €yxa (iii. 10), while the radaywyot 
are those who water the plant, or build the superstructure. 


16. mapaxah@ odv. ‘Therefore, as having the right to do so, 
I call upon my children to take after their father.’ S7 fi/i7 estis, 
debitum honorem debetis impendere patri, et imitatores existere 
(Atto). (‘CEsn abies. 16:6, 70 1. 075 0: 

pipntal pov yiverOe. ‘Show yourselves imitators of me’; ‘by 
your conduct prove your parentage.’ Here and xi. 1 (see note 
there), ‘imitators’ rather than ‘followers’ (AV.). The context 
shows the special points of assimilation, viz. humility and self- 
sacrifice (vv. 10-13). In Phil. iii. 17 we have ouvpupyrys. The 
charge is not given in a spirit of self-confidence. He has received 
the charge to lead them, and he is bound to set an example for 
them to follow, but he takes no credit for the pattern (xi. 1). 


17. Ava todto. ‘Because I desire you to prove imitators of 
me, I sent Timothy, a real son of mine in the Lord, to allay the 
contrary spirit among you.’ Timothy had probably already left 
Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), but was at work in Macedonia, and 
would arrive at Corinth later than this letter (Hastings, DJ. 1. 
p. 483). It is not stated in Acts that Corinth was Timothy’s 
ultimate destination, but we are told that the Corinthian Erastus 
(Rom. xvi. 23) was his companion on the mission. It is not 
clear whether ézema is the ordinary aorist, ‘I sent’ or ‘have 
sent,’ or the epistolary aorist, ‘I send.’ Deissmann, Zzghy, p. 157. 

téxvov. ‘Child’ in the same sense as éyévvyoa (v. 15). St 
Paul had converted him (Acts xvi. 1), on his visit to Lystra 
(Acts xiv. 7; cf. 1 Tim. i. 2,18; 2 Tim.i. 2). This dyamyrov 
kal mugtov Téxvov was fittingly sent to remind children who were 
equally beloved, but were not equally faithful, of their duties 
towards the Apostle who was the parent of both. The first 

* Findlay quotes Sanhedrin, f. xix 2; ‘‘ Whoever teaches the son of his 


friend the Law, it is as if he had begotten him,” 
t See Deissmann, Dre neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu.” 


Iv. 17-19] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE gI 


ds gives the relation of Timothy to the Apostle, the second his 
relation to the Corinthians; 6 ddeApds (2 Cor. i. 1) gives his 
relation to all Christians. His sparing this beloved child was 
proof of his love for them; 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2. 

dvaprycer. AnOynv S€ aitdy 6 Adyos Katynyopet (Orig.). They 
had forgotten much of what St Paul had taught them in person: 
ei KaTéxerTe (XV. 2). 

Tas 680vs pou. The real Apostle had been superseded in 
their imagination by an imaginary Paul, the leader of a party. 
His ‘ ways’ are indicated i. 17, iil. 1-5, lv. 11-13, 1X. 15, 22, 27. 

KaQws tavtaxod év macy ex. ‘Exactly as everywhere in every 
Church.’ There is a general consistency in the Apostle’s 
teaching, and Timothy will not impose any special demands 
upon the Corinthians, but will only bring them into line with 
what St Paul teaches everywhere. This is one of several passages 
which remind the Corinthians that they are only members of a 
much greater whole (see on i. 2). They are not the whole 
Church, and they are not the most perfect members. On the 
other hand, no more is required of them than is required of 
other Christians. 


After 6ia toiro, NA P 17 add atird: NX*BCDEFGLomit. pov réxvov 
(SABCP 17) rather than réxvoy pou(DEFGL). After év Xpiorg, 
D* F G add ’Inood’:: AB D®°E LP omit. 

18. “Qs ph épxopevou S€ pou. Some of them boastfully gave 
out; ‘Timothy is coming in his place; Paul himself will not 
come.’ The é6é marks the contrast between this false report and 
the true purpose of Timothy’s mission. 

epuowOnody tes. Vitium Corinthiis frequens, inflatio (Beng.); 
v. 6, 19, V. 2, Vill. 1.* The tense is the natural one to use, for 
St Paul is speaking of definite facts that had been reported to 
him. He cannot use the present tense, for he is ignorant of the 
state of things at the time of writing. But by using the aorist he 
does not imply that the evil is a thing of the past, and therefore 
‘are puffed up’ (AV., RV.), ¢zflati sunt (Vulg.), may be justified. 
There is nothing to show whether he knew who the tues were 
(cf. xv. 12; Gal. i. 7). Origen suggests that 6 Qeomréovos TlatAos 
does not mention any one, because he foresaw that the offenders 
would repent, and there was therefore no need to expose 
them. They are probably connected with the more definite 
and acrimonious opponents of 2 Cor. x. 1, 7, 10, xi. 4, where 
a leader, who is not in view in this Epistle, has come on the 
scene. 


19. éXeVoopat S€ taxéws. He intends remaining at Ephesus 


* The verb is peculiar to Paul in N.T., and (excepting Col. ii. 18) is 
peculiar to this Epistle. 


92 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [Iv. 19-21 


till Pentecost (xvi. 8). His plans, and changes of plan, and the 
charges made against him about his proposed visit, are discussed 
in 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, 23. 

éav 6 Kdptos OeAjon. A solemn touch; cf. xvi. 7; Jas. iv. 15. 
It is impossible, and not very important, to decide whether 6 
Kvpios means our Lord or the Father. Our Lord has just been 
mentioned; on the other hand, in connexion with @eAewv or 
6édnua, God is commonly meant. We have a similar doubt 
1 Thess. iil. 12. 

yrdoopat od tT. Adyov. . . GANA T. BUvapev. ‘Their words I 
shall ignore; they proceed from persons whose heads are turned 
with conceit ; but their power I shall put to the proof.’ This, 
as Godet remarks, is the language of a judge who is about to 
conduct a trial. ‘The power’ certainly does not mean that of 
working miracles (Chrys.); but rather that of winning men over 
to a Christian life. In ii. 4, 5 we had the antithesis between 
Aoyos and dvvapes in a different form. 

For trav redpvowwpévwv, L has rév mepvoidpevov: some cursives and 


Origen support the reading, but no editors adopt it. Before these words 
F inserts avrav. 


20. 4 Baotdela tr. Ocod. This expression has three meanings 
in the Pauline Epistles: (1) the future Kingdom of God, when 
God is ‘all in all’ (xv. 28); akin to this (2) the mediatorial 
reign of Christ, which is the Kingdom of God in process of 
development; and so, as here (and see Rom. xiv. 17), we have 
(3) the inward reality which underlies the external life, activities, 
and institutions of the Church, in and through which the 
Kingdom of Christ is realizing itself. In the externals of Church 
life, ‘word’ counts for something, but ‘power’ alone is of 
account in the sight of God.* By ‘power’ is meant spiritual 
power: see on ii. 5. 


21. év pdBSw. Exactly as in 1 Sam. xvii. 43, od epxn ex eve 
ev paBdw kai Aous; and 2 Sam. vii. 14, ehéyEw atrov ev paBdw 
kat ev adats: where the éy means ‘accompanied by’ or ‘pro- 
vided with.’ Cf. Heb. ix. 25, év aiyart adAXorpiw. ‘To lift up 
his hand with a sling-stone,’ éra@par xeipa év AlOw ogevddvns 
(Ecclus. xlvii. 5). Abbott (Johan. Gr. 2332) gives examples 
from papyri. ‘The idea of environment easily passes into that 
of equipment. Cf. Stat. Zhed. iv. 221, Gravi metuendus in hasta ; 
and Ennius, /evesgue seguuntur in hasta. The rod is that of 
spiritual rebuke and discipline; cf. od defooua (2 Cor. xiil. 3). 
It is strange that any one should contend, even for controversial 
purposes, such as defence of the temporal power, that a literal 


* See Regnum Dei, the Bampton Lectures for 1901, pp. 47-61, in which 
St Paul’s views of the Kingdom are examined in detail. 


V. 1-13] | ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 93 


rod is meant. But cf. Tarquini, Juris eccles. inst. p. 41, rgth ed. 
An allusion to the lictor’s rod is not likely.* 

é\@w. Deliberative subjunctive; ‘Am I to come?’ It is 
possible to make the verb dependent upon 6éXere, but it is more 
forcible to keep it independent (AV., RV.). Cf. émupévopev v7 
dmaptria; (Rom. vi. 1). 

€v aydry. The preposition here is inevitably év, and it was 
probably the antithesis with év @ydmy that led to the expression 
ev padw here, just as the bear-skin led to Virgil’s Horridus in 
jaculis, the rest of the line being e¢ pelle Libystinis ursae (Aen. 
Vv. 37): 

mvedypatt te mpattntos. Lither ‘the Spirit of meekness,’ ze. 
the Holy Spirit, manifested in one of His special gifts or fruits 
(Gal. v. 23), ov ‘a spirit of meekness,’ ze. a disposition of that 
character (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 13). The latter would be inspired by 
the Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 5). The absence of the article is 
in favour of the latter here. Contrast 16 zveipa tis ddnOetas 
(John xiv. 17, xvi. 13) with wvetpa codias (Eph. i. 17), and see 
J. A. Robinson, Zphestans, pp. 38, 39, and the note on zvedpa 
aywovvns (Rom. i. 4). Had the Apostle meant the Holy Spirit, 
he would probably have written év t@ 7v. r}s tp. By zpairns is 
meant the opposite of ‘harshness’ or ‘rudeness.’ Trench, Syz. 
§§ xlii., xliii., xcii. ; Westcott on Eph. iv. 2. 

mpairnros (A BC 17) rather than rpaérnros (S$ DEFGP). In Gal. 
v. 23, 8 joins A BC in favour of mpairys. In Eph. iv. 2, 8 BC 17 sup- 
port mpaiirys, in 2 Cor. x. 1, 8% BF GP 17 doso, in Col. iii. 12, 8 ABC P 
17. Lachmann, following Oecumenius and Calvin, makes iv. 21 the 
beginning of a new paragraph: it is a sharp, decisive dismissal of the 
subject of the cxlopara, 


Vv. 1-18. ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE. 


There is a case of gross tinmorality among you, and 
your attitude towards it ts distressing. Have no fellow- 
ship with such offenders. 


1Jt is actually notorious among you that there is a case of 
unchastity of a revolting character, a character so revolting as 
not to occur even among the heathen, that a man should have 
his step-mother as his concubine. And you, with this monstrous 
crime among you, have gone on in your inflated self-complacency, 
when you ought rather to have been overwhelmed with grief, 


* This has been suggested by Dr. E. Hicks, Roman Law in the N.T. 
. 182, But the rod as a metaphor for correction is common enough (Job 
meets /Xx1, 95, Ps. lxxxix, 32); Isa. ‘xi_5, 1etc,): 


94 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 1-13 


that it should have become necessary that the person who was 
guilty of this dreadful offence should be removed from your 
midst. %As for my view of it, there must be no uncertainty. 
Although absent in body yet present in spirit, I have already 
pronounced the sentence, which I should have pronounced had 
I been present, on the man who has perpetrated this enormity. 
4In the Name of our Lord Jesus, when you are all assembled 
in solemn congregation and my spirit is with you armed with 
the effectual power of our Lord Jesus, §I have given sentence 
that such an offender is to be handed over to Satan for the 
destruction by suffering of the flesh in which he has sinned, so 
that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord. ® Your 
glorying is not at all to your credit. Do you really not know 
that a very little leaven affects the whole lump of dough? 7 You 
must entirely cleanse away the old leaven, if you are to be (as, 
of course, as Christians you are) as free from leaven as a new 
lump of dough. You are bound to make this new start for 
many reasons; and above all, because Christ, our spotless 
Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed, and therefore everything 
which corrupts must be put away. ® Consequently we should 
keep our feast, not with leaven from our old lives, nor yet 
with leaven of vice and wickedness, but with bread free from 
all leaven, the bread of unsullied innocence and truth. 

9] said to you in my letter that you were not to keep 
company with fornicators. I did not exactly mean that you 
were to shun all the fornicators of the non-Christian world, any 
more than all the cheats, or extortioners, or idolaters. That 
would mean that you would have to go out of the world 
altogether. 1! What I meant was, that you were not to keep 
company with any one who bears the sacred name of Christian 
and yet is given to fornication, or cheating, or idolatry, or 
abusive language, or hard drinking, or extortion ;—with such a 
man you must not even share a meal. 1° Of course I did not 
refer to those who are not Christians; for what right have I to 
sit in judgment on them? I confine my judgments to those 
who are in the Church. 3° Do not you do the same? Those 
who are outside it we leave to God’s judgment. Only one 
practical conclusion is possible. Remove the wicked person 
from among you. 

The Apostle now comes to the second count of his indict- 


WI] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 95 


ment. It is not merely that a particularly flagrant case of 
immorality has occurred. That this should happen at all is 
bad enough. But what makes it far worse is the way in which 
it is taken by the community. Their morbid and frivolous 
self-conceit is untroubled. They have shown no sign of proper 
feeling: still less have they dealt with the case, as they ought 
to have done, by prompt expulsion (vv. 1-5). In view of the 
infectiousness of such evil, they ought to eliminate it, as leaven 
from a Jewish house at the Passover (6, 7); for the life of the 
Christian community is a spiritual Passover (8). His previous 
warning has been misunderstood. It means that for grave and 
scandalous sins a Christian must be made to suffer by isolation ; 
and this, in the case in question, must be drastically enforced 
(9-13). 

The passage is linked to the section dealing with the cx/cpara 
by the spiritual disorder (ro q@vow6Ajvar) which, according to 
St Paul’s diagnosis, lies at the root of both evils. Inordinate 
attention to external differences, and indifference to vital 
questions of morality, are both of them the outcome of self- 
satisfied frivolity. But the passage is more obviously linked 
with ch. vi., and especially with the subject of aoe which 
occupies its or portion (vi. 12-20). 

This indictment, following upon iv. 21 without any con- 
necting particle, bursts upon the readers like a thunder-clap. 


1. “Okws. Not ‘commonly’ (AV.), but “actually ’ (RV.). 
The word means ‘altogether,’ ‘most assuredly,’ ‘incontrovert- 
ibly’; or, with a negative, ‘at all.’ Such a thing ought not to 
be heard of a¢ al/ (exactly as in vi. 7; cf. xv. 29), and it is 
matter of common talk: 6Aws xzzlla debebat in vobis audiri scor- 
tatio; at auditur ddws (Beng.). 

dxovetar ev duty. The ev ipiv grammatically localizes the 
report, but in effect it localizes the offence: it was among them 
that the rumour was circulating, because in their midst the sin 
was found: ‘unchastity is reported [as existing] among you.’ 
The report may have reached the Apostle through the same 
channel as that which brought information about the factions 
(i. 11), or through Stephanas (xvi. 17). The weight of the 
Apostle’s censure falls, not upon the talk about the crime 
within the community, but upon its occurrence, and the failure 
to deal with it. 

mopveia. Illicit sexual intercourse in general. In Rey. xix. 2, 
as in class. Grk., it means prostitution: in Matt. v. 32, xix. 9 


96 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V.1, 2 


it is equivalent to povxeéa, from which it is distinguished Matt. 
xv. 19 and Mark vii. 21: cf. Hos. iii. 3; Ecclus. xxiii. 23, where 
we have év ropveia éuoixyevoe. 

kat tovaitn. ‘And of so monstrous a character as does not 
exist even among the heathen.’ The ovd€ intensifies év rois 
é6veowv, and dxoverat is not to be understood: ‘is not so much 
as named among the Gentiles’ (AV.) is wrong, based on a 
wrong reading. Cf. movum crimen et ante hunc diem inauditum 
(Cic. Pro Lig. i. 1); and scelus incredibile et praeter hanc unam in 
hac vita inauditum (In Cluent. 6), of Sassia’s marriage with her 
son-in-law, Melinus.* 

Gore yuvaixd twa tod watpds exe. The placing of twa 
between yvvaika and zartpdés throws emphasis on to these two 
words (Blass, Gr. § 80, 2). Chrysostom suggests that St Paul 
uses yuvaixa Tov Tatpds rather than pytpwdv in order to emphasize 
the enormity. More probably, he chooses the language of 
Lev. xviii. 8. The Talmud prescribes stoning for this crime. 
Cf. Amos ii. 7; Lev. xviii. 8. The woman was clearly not the 
mother of the offender, and probably (although the use of 
wopveia rather than pocyefa does not prove this) she was not, at 
the time, the wife of the offender’s father. She may have been 
divorced, for divorce was very common, or her husband may 
have been dead. There is little doubt that 2 Cor. vil. 12 
refers to a different matter, and that 6 aéixnOe’s there is not the 
offender’s father, but Timothy or the Apostle himself. As 
St Paul here censures the male offender only, the woman was 
probably a heathen, upon whom he pronounces no judgment 
(v. 12). The éxew implies a permanent union of some kind, 
but perhaps not a formal marriage: cf. John iv. 8. Origen 
speaks of it as a marriage (yapos), and €xw is used of marriage in 
vii. 2; Matt. xiv. 4, etc. In the lowest classes of Roman society 
the /ega/ line between marriage and concubinage was not sharply 
defined. 

After @verw, S® LP, Syrr. AV. add dvoudferas: N* ABCDEFG 
17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit. 

2. xat duets. The pronoun is emphatic; ‘you, among whom 
this enormity has taken place and is notorious, you are puffed 
up.’ He does not mean that they were puffed up decause of this 
outrage, as if it were a fine assertion of Christian freedom, but 
in spite of it. It ought to have humbled them to the dust, and 
yet they still retained their self-satisfied complacency. WH., 
Tisch., Treg. and RV. marg. make this verse interrogative ; ‘Are 
ye puffed up? Did ye not rather mourn?’ But the words are 

* There is also the case of Callias, who married his wife’s mother. 


Andocides (B.C. 400), in his speech on the mysteries, asks whether among 
the Greeks such a thing had ever been done before. 


V. 2, 3] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 97 


more impressive as the statement of an amazing and shocking 
fact: odxé is not always interrogative (x. 29; Luke xii. 51, xiii. 
3, 5, XV 30; Jobn ix. 9, xiii. 10, 11). Their morbid self- 
importance, which made them so intolerant of petty wrongs 
(vi. 7), made them very tolerant of deep disgrace. 

érevOnoate. ‘ Mourned,’ as if for one who was dead. 

iva dp. The iva indicates, not the purpose of the mourning, 
but the vesw/t of it, contemplated as its normal effect (see on i. 15). 
A proper Christian instinct would have led them to have expelled 
the guilty person in irrepressible horror at his conduct. 

6 15 Epyov toito mpdtas. Qui hoc facinus patravit (Beza). 
The language is purposely vague, but the context suggests a bad 
meaning : zpdgas (not roujoas) indicates a moral point of view. 
The attitude of the Corinthian Christians towards such conduct 
is probably to be accounted for by traditional Corinthian laxity.* 
It is said that the Rabbis evaded the Mosaic prohibitions of 
such unions (Lev. xx. 11; Deut. xxii. 30) in the case of prose- 
lytes. A proselyte made an entirely new start in life and cut 
off all his former relationships ; therefore incest, in his case, was 
impossible, for he had no relations, near or distant. It is not 
likely that this evasion of the Mosaic Law, if already in exist- 
ence, was known to the Corinthians and had influenced them. 

L has é&dp6n for dp0y7 (NW ABCDEFGP); and BDEFGLP have 
mowjoas for mpdéas (S& AC 17, and other cursives). It is not easy to decide 
in this latter case, and editors are divided. Compare 2 Cor. xii. 21; Rom. 
1. 32, 1. I-3. 

8. éy pev ydp. ‘ For J,’ with much emphasis on the pronoun, 
which is in contrast to the preceding tmets: ‘my feelings about 
it are very different from yours.’ The ydp introduces the justifi- 
cation of tva ap$y, showing what expulsion involves. St Paul 
does not mean that, as the Corinthians have not excommunicated 
the offender, he must inflict a graver penalty: this would be 
punishing the offender for what was the fault of his fellows. He 
is explaining what he has just said about their failing to remove 
the man. No é¢ follows the ev: the contrast which pev marks is 
with what goes before (v. 2), not with anything that is to follow. 
The correlation of péev . . . d€ is much less common in N.T. 
than in class. Grk. In some books pév does not occur, and in 
several cases it has no é€ as here: 1 Thess. ii. 18; Rom. vii. 12, 
x. 1, etc. See Blass, Gv. § 77. 12. 

driv 76 odpatt. ‘Although absent in the body.’ Again a 
contrast: ‘you, who are on the spot, do nothing; I, who am far 
away, and might excuse myself on that account, take very serious 
action.’ Origen compares Elisha (2 Kings v. 26). 


* What Augustine says of Carthage was still more true of Corinth; 
circumstrepebat me undique sartago flagitiosorum amorum (Conf. iil. 1). 


7 


-. 
Swe ae i bead 
. 
ot 


98 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE-CORINTHIANS /[V.3,4 


T® mveUpart. ‘His own spirit,’ as in v..4: cf. v. 5‘and Qi. 11 
In Col. ii. 5 we have a similar utterance, pt there oapé :takes 
the place of capa. It is the highest coristituent element in 
man’s nature, and his point of contact¥ith the Spirit of God. 

n5y KeKpiKa Gs Tapwy Tov K. Th. Eithér, ‘have already, as if 
I were present, judged the man’; o7, “hayesalready, as if I-were 
present, decided with regard to the mai? ; or, ‘have already 


come to a decision, as if I were present: ‘with regard to the - 


man,’ etc. In the last case, which is perhaps the best, tov... 


Katepyacdpevov is governed by zapadodvac and is repeated in tov 
TOLOUTOV. 


Before dmdév, D7 EFGL, AV. insert os: SN ABCD* P17, Vulg. 
Copt. Aeth. RV. omit. 


4. év tH dvouate x.t.A. Here we have choice of four con- 
structions. Lither, take év To évopati with ovvaxbevrwy and ovv 
TH Svvape. with rapadotva, or both with ovvaxGévrwv, or both 
with zapadodva, or ev TH dvop. With wapadodvac and otiv rH duv. 
with ovvaxfévrwv. If the order of the words is regarded as 
decisive, the first of these will seem to be most natural, and 
it yields good sense. Lightfoot adopts it. The Greek com- 
mentators mostly prefer the second construction, but neither it 
nor the third is as probable as the first and the fourth. It is 
not likely that either ovvax$évrwy or rapadotva is meant to have 
both qualifications, while the other has none. The fourth con- 
structicn is the best of the four. The solemn opening, ev 7é 
évopatt Tod Kupiov Incod, placed first with emphasis, belongs to 
the main verb, the verb which introduces the sentence that is 
pronounced upon the offender, while oty 17 duvapert. K. qydv "I. 
supplies a coefficient that is essential to the competency of the 
tribunal. ‘The opening words prepare us for a sentence of grave 
import, but we are kept in suspense as to what the sentence will 
be, until the conditions which are to give it validity are described. 
Graviter suspensa manet et vibrat oratio (Beng.). We translate, 
therefore ; ‘With regard to the man who has thus perpetrated 
the deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—you being 
assembled and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ 
—to deliver such an one to Satan.’ The rov rowirov is not 
rendered superfluous by the preceding ror. . . xatepyaoapevov : 
it intimates that the Apostle is prepared to deal in a similar way 
with any similar offender. 


* Evans thinks that &s rapév does not mean ‘as 7fI were present in the 
body,’ but ‘as being really present in the spirit.” His spirit had at times 
exceptional power of insight into the state of a church at a distance: ovx ws 
dmbarodos GX ws rpopyrns elev (Orig.). 


wee 


} 


Vv. 4,5 ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 
99 


After dvéuart r. Kupiov, BD EF GLP have jay, and it is probably 
genuine, but 8 A and other witnesses omit, and it might easily be inserted 
from the next clause. P and some other witnesses omit the second quar. 
After first Inood, 8 D? EF GLP, Vulg. Syrr. add Xpirod : A B D*, Am. 
omit. After second ‘Inco’, D* F L add Xpuorod: NS A B D* P, Vulg. omit, 
AV. inserts ‘Christ’ in both places; RV. omits in both. 

5. wapadotvar tr. t. 7@ Zatavad. ‘This means solemn expulsion 
from the Church and relegation of the culprit to the region 
outside the commonwealth and covenant (Eph. ii. 11, 12), 
where Satan holds sway. We have the same expression 1 Tim. 
i. 20. It describes a severer aspect of the punishment which 
is termed aipev €« péoou (v. 2) and efaipev e& ipav (v. 13). 
Satan is the dpywy rod Kdopov rovrov (John xii. 31, xvi. 11), and 
the offender is sent back to his domain ; wt gud auctor fuerat ad 
vitium neguitiae, ipse flagellum fieret disciplinae (Herv.). St Paul 
calls Satan ‘the god of this age’ (2 Cor. iv. 4), an expression 
which occurs nowhere else ; and a Christian, who through his own 
wickedness forfeits the security of being a member of Christ in 
His Church, becomes, like the heathen, exposed to the malignity 
of Satan (1 John v. 19) to an extent that Christians cannot be. 

eis OAeOpov THs gapkds. ‘There is no need to choose between 
the two interpretations which have been put upon this expres- 
sion, for they are not mutually exclusive and both are true. 
The sinner was handed over to Satan for the ‘mortification of 
the flesh,’ ze. to destrey his sinful lusts; ro Ppovnpa tis capKds 
is Origen’s interpretation. ‘This meaning is right, for the punish- 
ment was inflicted with a remedial purpose, both in this case 
and in that of 1 ‘Tim. i. 20: and the interpretation is in harmony 
with the frequent Pauline sense of oapé (Rom. viii. 13 and Col. 
lii. 5), as distinct from c@pua. But so strong a word as dAeOpos 
implies more than this. ‘ Unto destruction of the flesh’ includes 
physical suffering, such as follows spiritual judgment on sin 


(xi. 30; Acts v. 1f., xiii. 11).* The Apostle calls his own 


‘thorn for the flesh’ an dyyeAos Sarava (2 Cor. xii. 7; cf. Luke 
xiii. 6). _We have the same idea in Job, where Jehovah says to 
Satan, “Idod zapadiédwpt cou airov (ii. 6). And in the book of 
Jubilees (x. 2) demons first lead astray, and then blind and kill, 
the grandchildren of Noah. Afterwards Noah is taught by 
angels how to rescue his offspring from the demons. See 
Thackeray, S¢ Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 171. 
Here the punishment is for the good, not only of the community, 
but also of the offender, upon whom the suffering inflicted by 
Satan would have a healing effect. 

iva 16 mvedpa. The purpose of the suffering is not mere 

* Renan, Godet, and Goudge regard the expression as meaning sentence 
of death by a wasting sickness. Expulsion is not mentioned here ; hence the 


sharp command in v. F3>~ 


100 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V.5 


destruction; it is remedial, Wa ow6y. Cf. airds cwbynoerar 
(iii. 15). Here 76 rvedpua, as the seat of personality, is suggested 
by the context instead of uirés.* As in 2 Cor. vil. 1, 76 rvejpa 
is used in contrast to 7 odpé, and as the chief and distinctive 
factor in the constitution of man, but as not fer se distinctive of 
a state of grace. Strong measures may be needed in order to 
secure its salvation. See Abbott, Ze Son of Man, pp. 482, 791. 

év TH Hpépa t. Kupiov. i. 8; 2 Cor. i. 14; 1 Thess. v. 2, ete. 

It is sometimes assumed that, while the Corinthian Church 
was competent, by itself, to expe/ an offender (v. 2), it was by 
virtue of the extraordinary power given to St Paul as an Apostle 
that the delivery to Satan was inflicted. ‘There is nothing in the 
passage to prove this; and the yap in v. 3 rather points the other 
way. Why should St Paul inflict a more severe punishment 
than that which the Corinthian Church ought to have inflicted ? + 

It is still more often assumed that the sequel of, this case is 
referred to in 2 Cor. li. 5-11, vii. 12. It is inferred from these 
passages that the Corinthian Church held a meeting such as 
the Apostle prescribes in this chapter, and by a majority (2 Cor. 
ii. 6) passed the sentence of expulsion, whereupon the offender 
was led to repentance; and that the Corinthians then awaited 
the Apostle’s permission to remit the sentence, which permission 
he gives (2 Cor. ii. 10). This view, however, is founded on two 
assumptions, one of which is open to serious question, and the 
other to question which is so serious as to be almost fatal. The 
view assumes that 2 Cor. i.-ix. was written soon after 1 Cor., 
which is very doubtful. It also assumes that 2 Cor. ii. 5-11 
and vii. 12 refer to this case of incest, which is very difficult to 
believe. 2 Cor. vii. 12 certainly refers to the same case as 
2 Cor. ii. 5-11, and the language in vii. 12 is so utterly unsuit- 
able to the case of incest that it is scarcely credible that it can 
refer to it. See Hastings, DB. 1. p. 493, Ul. p. 711, and Iv. 
p. 768; G. H. Rendall, Zhe Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 63, 
71; Goudge, p. 41; Plummer on 2 Cor. vii. 12. 


F has av’réy for rév toodrov. After rod Kuplov, 8 L add Ineod, D adds 
"Inood Xpicrod, A F M add judy Inood Xpicrod: B has simply rod Kuplov, 
which may be the original reading, but rod Kuplov’Ina00 is not improbable ; 
so AV., RV., WH. marg. 





* did Tov Kpelrrovos dvoudoas bov Tov dv@pwHrov gwrnplay (Orig.). There 
was no need to add the yvy7 and the gua. The penalty is for the good of 
the community as well as of the offender. A shepherd, says Origen, must 
drive out a tainted sheep that would infect the flock. 

+ The resemblance of this passage to various forms of magic spells and 
curses is sometimes pointed out. The fundamental difference is this, that all 
such spells and curses aim at serious evil to the persons against whom they 
are directed. The Apostle aims at the rescue of the offender from perdition, 
Moreover, he desires to rescue the Corinthian Church from grave peril. 


_—_* 


Vv. 6, 7| ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE IOI 


6. OF Kahdv Td Kadxnpa Guay. ‘Not seemly is your boast’: 
it is ill-timed, and it is discreditable to all who share in it.* 
Where a revolting crime is bringing disgrace and peril to the 
community, there can be no place for boasting. St Paul does 
not mean that the suwdyect of their glorying, the thing they glory 
in (e.g. their enlightenment, or their liberty) is not good; but 
that in such distressing circumstances overt glorying is very 
unsuitable. As Evans elaborately points out, xavxyyua is not 
materies gloriandt, but gloriatio (Beza, Beng.), or (more accur- 
ately) gloriatio facta, boasting uttered.{ So also in 2 Cor. 
Vv. 12. 

pexpa Lupy. The pexpa comes first with emphasis, and hence 
implies an argument a@ fortiori: if even a /tt/e leaven is so 
powerful, if even one unsatisfactory feature may have a septic 
influence in a community, how much more must a scandal of 
this magnitude infect the whole life of the Church. The simile 
of leaven is frequent in the N.T. See Gal. v. 9. Here the 
stress of the argument lies less in the evil example of the offender 
than in the fact that toleration of this conduct implies con- 
currence (Rom. i. 32) and debases the standard of moral 
judgment and instinct. ‘To be indifferent to grave misbehaviour 
is to become partly responsible for it. A subtle atmosphere, 
in which evil readily springs up and is diffused, is the result. 
The leaven that was infecting the Corinthian Church was a 
vitiated public opinion. Cf. 2 Thess. iil. 6; also the charge of 
Germanicus to his soldiers as to their treatment of insubordinate 
comrades: discedite a contactu, ac dividite turbidos (Tac. Ann. 


i. 43). 


Both here and in Gal. v. 9 we find the reading Soo? for fymot in D 
with corrumpit in Vulg. and other Latin texts. 


7. éxxaOdpate thy m. {uunv. A sharp, summary appeal: ‘ Rid 
yourselves of these infected and infectious remains of your 
unconverted past,’ even as a Jewish household, in preparation 
for the Passover, purges the house of all leaven (Exod. xii. 15 f., 
xiii. 7). This was understood as a symbol of moral purification, 
and the search for leaven as symbolizing infectious evil was 
scrupulously minute, e.g. with candles to look into corners and 
mouse-holes for crumbs of leavened bread. Zeph. i. 12 was 
supposed to imply this. The penalty for eating leavened bread 


* Some Latin texts omit the negative, making the statement sarcastic 
(Lucif. Ambrst. and MSS. known to Augustine). The od may easily have 
been lost owing to the preceding Kupiou or Xpiorod. 

+ If he had meant materzes gloriandz, he would probably have said that 
they had none, ox éxere xavxnua. Like ovk émalvyw (xi. 17, 22), ob xadédv 
is a reproachful litotes. 


102 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 7 


during the feast was scourging. On compounds with é« see on 
iil. 18, and cf. 2 Tim. ii. 21. 

Thy wadady {ipnv. It was their acquiescing in the scandal 
which revealed the presence of a remnant of heathen corrup- 
tion. The summons to thoroughly purge away all sinful taints 
cuts deep into the corporate and individual conscience. Each 
knows the plague-spot in himself. The verb occurs again 
2 Tim. ii. 21, and nowhere else in N.T.; also Deut. xxvi. 13. 
With zaAatay here cf. raAaus avOpwros, Rom. vi. 6; Eph. iv. 22; 
Col. iii. 9. Ignatius (A/agn. 10) says, tréphecbe otv thy Kaxnv 
Cipnv tiv wadawb<icav Kat evogicacay. By the evil leaven which 
has become stale and sour he means Judaism. Note the ovr. 

iva HTe véov pupapa, ‘That you may be a new lump of 
dough,’ z.e. may make a new start in sanctification free from 
old and evil influence.* Cf. otvoy véov (Matt. ix. 17), and see 
Trench, Svz. § 60. There is only one ¢vpapya, only one body 
of Christians, just as there is only one loaf (x. 17). See on 
Luke xii. 1 for the evil associations connected with leaven: 
yéyovey €k POopas atti Kal POetpe. TO Pvpaya (Plutarch). See 
Hastings, DS. ul. p. go. 

KaQds €ote afupo.. This is the proper, the ideal condition 
of all Christians. ‘Ye ave unleavened, having been baptized 
and made a xaw# «tious in Christ (2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. iv. 24; 
Col. iii. 10), and are becoming in fact what you are in principle 
and by profession’ (vi. 11). St Paul habitually idealizes, 
speaking to Christians as if they were Christians in the fullest 
sense, thus exemplifying Kant’s maxim that you should treat a 
man as if he were what you would wish him to be. 

It is utterly wrong to take afvpou literally ; ‘ye are without 
leaven,’ because (it is assumed) they were at that moment 
keeping the Passover. (1) In the literal sense, adZvpos is used 
of things, not of persons. (2) The Corinthian Church consisted 
almost entirely of Gentile Christians. (3) The remark would 
have no point in this context. But the imagery in this passage 
suggests, though it does not prove, that St Paul was writing 
at or near the Passover season (cf. xvi. 8). See Deissmann, 
Light, p. 333. 

kal yap 16 mdcxa tov é€rd@y. Directly, this is the reason 
for the preceding statement; ‘You are dfvpo, purified from the 
leaven of your old self, by virtue of the death of your Saviour.’ 
Indirectly and more broadly, this is a reason for the practical 
summons at the beginning of the verse: ‘It is high time for 


* The Vulgate has the curious rendering, uf s¢tzs mova conspersio. This 
rare substantive is found, with the same unexpected meaning, twice in 
Tertullian (J/arcion. iv. 24, Valent. 31), in the sense of a lump of dough, 
and once in Irenaeus (v. xiv. 2), probably as a translation of ¢épaya. 


V. 7, 8] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 103 


you to purge out the old leaven; for the Lamb is already slain 
and your house is not yet fully cleansed: you are late!’ See 
Deut. xvi. 6; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7.* The quay serves to 
link the Christian antitype to the Jewish type. 

Xpiotds. ‘Even Christ’; last for emphasis, like 6 xpivwv 
(Rom. ii. 1) and 6 rarpidpyns (Heb. vii. 4). The force of the 
Apostle’s appeal is in any case obvious, but it gains somewhat 
in point if we suppose him to have in mind the tradition which 
is embodied in the Fourth Gospel, that Christ was crucified on 
the 14th Nisan, the day appointed for the slaying of the paschal 
lamb. We may say that the Pauline tradition, like the Johannine, 
makes the Death of Christ, rather than the Last Supper, the 
antitype of the Passover, but we can hardly claim St Paul as 
a definite witness for the 14th Nisan.¢ On this difficult subject 
see Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, p. 146; Hastings, DB. 
I. p. 411, DCG. i. 5 ; and the literature there quoted. 

Nor, again, can this passage be claimed as evidence for the 
Christian observance of Easter, although such observance would 
probably be coeval with that of the Lord’s Day. As in Mark 
xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7, 11; John xviii. 28, maoya is here used of 
the paschal lamb, not, as commonly, of the paschal supper or 
of the paschal octave. 

éxkafdpare without connecting particle (S* AB DEFG, Vulg. Copt. 
RV.) rather than éxxa@dpare ody (N° CLP, Aeth. AV.). On still stronger 


evidence, trep tuav must be omitted after 7d mdcya tudv. Cursives have 
€4U0n for érv@n. Did Ignatius (see above) have oiy in his text ? 


8. gore. With cohortative subjunctive as with imperative, 
see on ill. 21. 

éoptdiwpev. ‘Our passover-feast is not for a week, but for 
a life-time” (Godet), ott mas 6 yxpovos éoptrns €ott Katpos Tots 
Xpuoriavois (Chrys.). The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but 
is frequent in LXX. “Inoots 6 Xpioros éotw 7 véa Cipy (Orig.). 

év {upy. See on iv. 21 for this use of ev. 

kakias Kal movyptas. Trench, Syz. § 11, makes xaxia the 
vicious principle, zovypia its outward exercise. It is doubtful 
whether this is correct. In LXX both words are used indiffer- 
ently to translate the same Hebrew words, which shows that to 
Hellenists they conveyed ideas not widely distinct. In the 
Vulgate both ma/itia and xeguitia are used to translate both 
words, malitia being used most often for xaxia, and neguttia for 
movnpia, for which zmguitas also is used. ‘ Malice’ may trans- 


*In Mark xiv. 12 the AV. has ‘47// the Passover,’ with ‘sacrifice’ in 
the margin ; in Luke xxii. 7, ‘kill,’ without any alternative ; here ‘ sacrifice,’ 
with ‘slay’ in the margin: the R.V. has ‘sacrifice’ in all three places, 

+ On the general relation between the two traditions see J. Kaftan, 
Jesus u. Paulus, pp. 59-69. 


104 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 8,9 


late xaxia in most places in the N.T., but not in Matt. vi. 34, 
where Vulg. has ma/itia (!), nor in Acts viii. 22, where it has 
nequitia. It is noteworthy that fravitas is not used for either 
word. Luke xi. 39 shows that zovypfa may mean thoughts or 
purposes of wickedness; cf. Mark vii. 22. The genitives are 
genitives of apposition. 

é{upots. Perhaps ‘unleavened bread’ (AV., RV.) is right, 
with reference to the unleavened cakes eaten at the Passover ; 
extra ypepas alupa edecbe (Exod. xii. 15). But a¢vpa is very 
indefinite ; ‘unleavened elements.’ Origen refers this to i. 2. 

eihuxpwvias. The word is a crux as regards etymology, but 
it seems to mean ‘transparency,’ ‘limpid purity,’ and hence 
‘ingenuousness..’ 

Gdnbeias. In its wider sense, ‘rectitude,’ ‘integrity’; cf. 
xill. 6; Eph. v. 9; John iii. 21.* 

éoprafupev (XN BCF GL, de Vulg.) rather than éoprafoyev (A D E P). 

For rovnplas F has zropvelas. 


9. "Eypapa Spiv ev tH €motody. Pursuing the main purpose 
of the passage, viz. to rebuke their indifference respecting moral 
scandal, the Apostle corrects a possible misapprehension of his 
former directions ; or at any rate he shows how what he said 
before would apply in cases more likely to occur than the one 
which has just been discussed. ‘I wrote to you in my letter,’ 
in the letter which was well known to the Corinthians, a letter 
earlier than our 1 Corinthians and now lost. It is true that 
éypaya might be an ‘epistolary aorist’ (Gal. vi. 11; 1 John ii. 14) 
referring to the letter then being written. But ev rH érucroAy 
(cf. 2 Cor. vii. 8) must refer to another letter. Rom. xvi. 22; 
Col. iv. 16; 1 Thess. v. 27 are all retrospective, being parts of 
a postscript. In /¢hiés letter he has not given any direction 
about not keeping company with fornicators; for a summons 
to expel a member who has contracted an incestuous union 
cannot be regarded as a charge not to associate with fornicators. 
It is evident that here, as in 2 Cor. x. 9f., he is making reference 
to an earlier letter which has not been preserved. So also Atto; 
non in hac epistola sed altera: and Herveius ; tn alia jam epistola. 
Some think that 2 Cor. vi. 14—-vii. 1 may be part of the letter 
in question. See notes there and Introduction to 2 Corinthians 
in the Cambridge Greek Testament. Stanley gives two spurious 


* It is possible that these two words are meant to prepare for what 
follows. Perhaps the Apostle saw that there had been some shuffling and 
evasion about the injunction in the former letter. They said that they did 
not understand it, and made that an excuse for ignoring it. How St Paul 
heard of the misinterpretation of his earlier letter we are not told. Zahn 
suggests the Corinthians’ letter, of which he finds traces even before vii. 1 
(/ntrod, to N.T. p. 261). 


Vv. 9,10 ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 10 
5 


letters, one from, the other to, St Paul, which are not of much 
interest, but which have imposed upon the Armenian Church 
(Appendix, p. 591 f.).* 

pi) cuvavapiyrucOar. Lit. ‘not to mix yourselves up together 
with’: ze commisceamint (Vulg.). This expressive combination 
of two prepositions with the verb occurs again in a similar con- 
nexion 2 Thess. iii. 14; also in the A text of Hos. vii. 8. Cf. 
2 Thess. iii. 6. 


10. od mdvtws. ‘Not altogether,’ ‘not absolutely,’ ‘not in 
all circumstances.’ It limits the prohibition of intercourse with 
fornicators, which does not apply in the case of fornicators who 
are outside the Christian community. The Apostle is not 
repeating the prohibition in another form, which would have 
required yu, as before. The od=‘not, I mean,’ or ‘I do not 
mean.’ ‘The meaning is quite clear. 

Tod Kdopou TovTouv. ‘Of the non-Christian world.’ 

H} tots mAeovextats. ‘Or’ here is equivalent to our ‘any 
more than.’ 

Tots mAeovéxtats Kat Gpmwagw. These form a single class, 
coupled by the single article and the xa‘, and separated from 
each of the other classes by 7. This class is that of the 
absolutely selfish, who covet and sometimes seize more than 
their just share of things. ‘They exhibit that amor sud which is 
the note of ‘this world,’ and which usurps the place of amor 
Det, until rAcoveEia becomes a form of idolatry (Eph. v. 5). 

eidSwdohdtpars. In the literal sense; x. 14; 1 John vy. 21. 
This is the first appearance of the word (Rev. xxi. 8, xxii. 15), 
which may have been coined by St Paul. In Eph. vy. 5 it is used 
in a figurative sense of a worshipper of Mammon. The triplet 
of vices here consists of those which characterize non-Christian 
civilization ; lax morality, greed, and superstition. The last, in 
some form or other, is the inevitable substitute for spiritual 
religion. 

émel Gheihete dpa. ‘Since in that case you would have to’; 
cf. vil. 14. “Ezed implies a protasis, which is suppressed by an 
easy ellipse ; ‘since, were it not so, then,’ etc. “Apa introduces 
a subjective sequence, while oty introduces an objective one. 
‘Odeircre is in an apodosis, where the idiomatic imperfect marks 


* There is little doubt that a number of the Apostle’s letters have perished, 
especially those which he wrote in the early part of his career, when his 
authority was less clearly established, and the value of his words less under- 
stood ; 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17. See Renan, S. Paz/, p. 234. 

Ramsay points out the resemblance between this passage (9-13) and 
2 Thessalonians, which guards against misconception of his teaching that 
had arisen owing to the strong emphasis which he had laid on the coming of 
the Kingdom (Pauline Studies, p. 36). 


106 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V.10, 11 


the consequence of a state of things that is supposed not to exist ; 
and the ay which is usual in such an apodosis is commonly 
omitted with such verbs as dqeiAere, Eder, Kaddv Hv, etc. 

é€x Tod Kdopou éfeAOeitv. This for most people is impossible ; 
but at Corinth in St Paul’s day it was well for Christians to see 
as little of the heathen world as was possible. In x. 27 he does 
not forbid the presence of Christians at private entertainments 
given by heathen, but he implies that they ought not to wish to 
go to them. 


od mdvTws (S* ABCD* EFG 17, Vulg.) rather than kal od rdvTws 
83 D3 LP, Arm. Aeth.). The ‘yet’ in AV. seems to represent kai. xal 
dpratw (X* A BC D* FG P 17, Aeth) rather than 7 dpragtw (N* D® E L, 
Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm.), an alteration to conform to # on each side. AV. 
has ‘or,’ RV. ‘and.’ weitere (NW A B* CDEFGL17, Latt.) rather than 
égpeldere (B® P, Chrys. Thdrt.), another mistaken correction, the force of 
the imperfect not being seen. 


11. viv 8é éypapa. ‘But, as it is, I wrote’ (RV. marg.), not 
‘But now I write’ (RV.). The latter is grammatically possible 
and makes good sense, but it is unlikely that €ypaya is in v. 9 
historical, of an earlier letter, and here epistolary, of the present 
letter. The viv is logical, not temporal, ‘now you see,’ ‘now 
you understand’ that the earlier letter meant something different. 
Had the Apostle meant the viv to be temporal and the verb to 
refer to the present letter, he would have written ypdadw, as in 
iv. 14. He has stated what the earlier letter did not mean (ov 
7dvtws), and he now very naturally states what it did mean.* 

édv ... y- The form of protasis covers all cases that may 
come to light: see on iv. 15. Almost all editors prefer 7 to 7 
before zopvos. 

dvopatduevos. ‘Any who bears the name of a brother,’ 
though he has forfeited the right to it. He is called a brother, 
but he really is a zopvos or, etc. Some early interpreters take 
évopalopevos with what follows; ‘if any brother be called a 
whoremonger,’ or ‘be a notorious whoremonger.’ ‘The latter 
would require évopacrds, and we should have ddeAgos ts rather 
than tis ddeAdos. Evidently ddeAgos and dvoualopevos are to be 
taken together. He is called a Christian, and he really is a 
disgrace to the name; that is a reason for shunning him. But if 
he is a Christian and is called some bad name, that is not a 
reason for shunning him: the bad name may be a slander. 

mAeovéextns. There is no good ground for supposing that, 
either here, or in v. 10, or anywhere else, 7Acovéxrys means 
‘sensual’ (see on Eph. iv. 19). The desire which it implies is 
the desire for possessions, greed, grasping after what does not 
belong to one. 


* Abbott, Johan. Gr. 2691, gives other examples. 


W. il, 12] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 107 


eiSwddtpys. Stanley would give this word also the meaning 
of ‘sensual.’ But there is no improbability in Corinthian converts 
being tainted with idolatry. Origen says that in his time the 
plea that idolatry was a matter of indifference was common 
among Christians serving in the army. Modern experience 
teaches that it is very difficult to extinguish idolatrous practices 
among converts, and Chrysostom may be right in suggesting 
that the Apostle inserts ‘idolater’ in his list as a preparation for 
what he is about to say on the subject (viii. 10, x. 7, 14 f.). The 
Corinthians were evidently very lax. 

Aoidopos. Origen notes with what very evil people the Aoiédo- 
pos is classed: #Alkois Kaxots Tov Aoidopov cuvnpibunoev. The 
word occurs vi. 10, and in LXX in Proverbs and Ecclus., but 
nowhere else. Chrysostom (on vi. 10) says that many in his day 
blamed the Apostle for putting Aoidopor and pébvoo into such 
epmpany. Matt. v.21, 22; 1 Pet. im. 9. 

peducos. Rom. xiil. 13. In Attic writers applied to women, 
men being called peOvarixoi, tapouwrkol, or tapotvior. Cf. dpyyn 
peydAn yuv7 weOvoos (Ecclus. xxvi. 8) ; but elsewhere in LXX it is 
used of men (Ecclus. xix. 1; Prov. xxiil. 21, xxvi. 9). It some- 
times means ‘intoxicated’ rather than ‘given to drink.’ The 
péOvoos and the Aotdopos are additions to the first list. 

pyde cuvec@ier. An emphatic intimation of what he means 
by py cvvavapiyvoba. Cf. Luke xv. 2; Gal. ii, 12. The 
Apostle is not thinking of Holy Communion, in which case the 
pndé would be quite out of place: he is thinking of social meals ; 
‘Do not invite him to your house or accept his invitations.’ But, 
as Theodoret points out, a prohibition of this kind would lead to 
the exclusion of the offender from the Lord’s Table. Great 
caution is required in applying the Apostle’s prohibition to 
modern circumstances, which are commonly not parallel. The 
object here, as in 2 John tro, is twofold: to prevent the spread of 
evil, and to bring offenders to see the error of their ways. In 
any case, what St Paul adds in giving a similar injunction must 
not be forgotten; kai pn ws €xOpov nyetobe, GAA vovberetre ds 
adeApov (2 Thess. iii. 15). Clement of Rome (Cor. 14) says of 
the ringleaders of the schism, xpyorevowpeba adrots Kara tiv 
eiorAayxviay Kal yAvukityTa Tov TolnTavTos yas, perhaps in 
reference to Matt. v. 45, 48. 

vov (S73 ABD3EFGLP) rather than yuri (8*C D* D3): the more 


emphatic form might seem to be more suitable. Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth. 
Goth. support 7 against 4 before wépvos. For wndé, A has pw and F has 


bnré. 
12. ti ydp por tos efw xpivew; ‘For what business of mine 
is it to judge those that are outside?’ Quid enim mihi (Vulg.); 
Ad quid mihi (Tert.); Quid mea interest (Beza). Gives the 


108 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 12, 18 


reason why they ought never to have supposed that he ordered 
them to shun the company of heathen who were fornicators: the 
meaning given in z. 11 is the only possible meaning. The phrase 
rovs é£w (1 Thess. iv. 12; Col. iv. 5) is of Jewish origin. Jews 
applied it to Gentiles; our Lord applies it to Jews who are not 
His disciples (Mark iv. 11); St Paul applies it to non-Christians, 
whether Jews or Gentiles. In 1 Tim. iil. 7, where he speaks of 
non-Christians judging Christians, he uses ot éw4ev. The 
expression states a fact, without any insinuation of censure. 
How could they suppose that he claimed jurisdiction over heathen 
and placed a stigma upon them for heathen behaviour? Epictetus 
(Enchir. 47) tells those who are continent not to be severe upon 
those who are not, or to claim any superiority. 

obxt Tous Eow Speis Kpivete ; TOvS €ow and tpets are in emphatic 
juxtaposition: ‘Is it not those that are within that you judge? 
They are your sphere of jurisdiction.’ The present tense is 
‘axiomatic,’ stating what is normal. The proposal to put a 
colon at ovys and make xpivere an imperative (‘No; judge ye 
those who are within’) is unintelligent. Ovx¢ is not an answer to 
ti; and the sentence is much less telling as a command than as 
a question. Ody is one of the words which is far more common 
in Paul and Luke than elsewhere in N.T. 


18. 6 Geds xpiver. The verb is certainly to be accented as a 
present: it states the normal attribute of God. And the sentence 
is probably categorical ; ‘ But them that are without God judgeth.’ 
This is more forcible than to bring it under the interrogative 
ovxc; ‘Is it not the case that you judge those who are within, 
while God judges those who are without?’ But WH. and 
Bachmann adopt the latter. 

etdpate tov movnpév. A quotation from Deut. xvii. 7, bringing 
to a sharp practical conclusion the discussion about the treat- 
ment of zopveca, and at the same time giving a final rebuke to 
them for their indifference about the case of incest. The offender 
must be at once expelled. Origen adds that we must not be 
content with expelling the evil man from our society; we must 
take care to expel the evil one (tov zovnpov) from our hearts. Note 
the double ¢: the riddance must be complete. See on iii. 18. 


Vulg. Arm. Copt. Aeth. take xpwec asa future. é&dpare (§ A BC D* 


FGP, Vulg.) rather than kai éEapetre (D* E L), or xal é&dpare (17). The 
verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is very frequent in LXX. 


VI. 1-11. LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS. 


The Apostle passes on to a third matter for censure, and in 
discussing it he first treats of the evil and its evil occasion (1-8), 


VI. 1-11] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 109 


and then, in preparation for what is to follow, points out that 
all unrighteousness is a survival from a bad past which the 
Corinthians ought to have left behind them (9-11). 


1-8. The Evil and its Evil Occasion. 


How can you dare to go to law with one another in 
heathen caurts? If there must be sutts, let Christian judge 
Christian, 


1 The subject of judging brings me to another matter. Is it 
possible that, when one of you has a dispute with a fellow- 
Christian, he takes upon himself to bring the dispute before a 
heathen tribunal, instead of bringing it before believers. 2 Or is 
it that you do not know that, at the Last Day, believers will sit 
with Christ to judge the world? And if the world is to be judged 
hereafter at your bar, are you incompetent to serve in the pettiest 
tribunals? *Do not you know that we are to sit in judgment 
on angels? After that, one need hardly mention things of daily 
life. ‘4If, then, you have questions of daily life to be decided, 
do you really take heathens, who are of no account to those who 
are in the Church, and set them to judge you? °It is to move 
you to shame that I am speaking like this. Have things come 
to such a pass that, among the whole of you, there is not a single 
person who is competent to arbitrate between one Christian and 
another, but that, on the contrary, Christian goes to law with 
Christian, and that too before unbelievers? 7 Nay, at the very 
outset, there is a terrible defect in your Christianity that you 
have lawsuits at all with one another. Why not rather accept 
injury? Why not rather submit to being deprived? But, so 
far from enduring wrong, what you do is this; you wrong and 
deprive other people, and those people your fellow-Christians. 

The subject of going to law before heathen tribunals is linked 
to the subject discussed in the previous chapter by the reference 
to the question of judgment (v. 12, 13).* The moral sense of a 
Christian community, which ought to make itself felt in judging 
offenders within its own circle, ought still more to suffice for 

* There may be another link. In v. 10, 11 St Paul twice brackets the 
mépvos with the m\covéxrns, and he now passes from the one to the other. It 


was desire to have more than one had a right to (wdeovetta) which led to this 
litigation in heathen courts. See on Eph. iv. 19. 


18 fe) FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VI. 1 


settling disputes among its members, without recourse to heathen 
courts, whose judges stand presumably on a lower ethical level 
than Christians. But there is no real argumentative connexion 
with the preceding section. The Apostle has finished two points 
in his indictment, and he now passes on to another. 

The Apostle’s principles with regard to secular and heathen 
magistrates are perfectly consistent. In Rom. xiii. he inculcates 
the attitude of a good citizen, which is not only obedience to law, 
but the recognition of the magistrate as God’s minister. This 
carries with it submission to the law as administered by the 
courts, and acceptance of the authority of the courts in criminal 
cases. St Paul had had experience of the protection of Roman 
Justice (Acts xviii. 12 f., xxv. 16), and he himself appealed to 
Caesar. But to zuvoke the courts to decide disputes defween 
Christians was quite another matter; and he lays it down here 
that to do so is a confession of the failure of that justice which 
ought to reign in the Christian Society. ‘Obey the criminal 
courts, but do not go out of your way to invoke the civil courts,’ 
is a fair, if rough, summary of his teaching. 

1. Todpa tis buav. We know nothing of the facts, but it is 
clear from v. 8 that the Apostle has no merely isolated case in 
view: toApa grandt verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum 
(Beng.); Rom. xv. 18. The word is an argument in itself; 
‘ How can you dare, endure, bring yourself to?’ 

mpaypa. In the forensic sense ; ‘a cause for trial,’ ‘a case,’ 
Joseph. Amt. xiv. x. 7. 

tov €repov. Not ‘another’ (AV.), but ‘his neighbour’ (RV.), 
‘his fellow’ (x. 24, xiv. 17; Rom. il. 1; Gal. vi. 4). 

xplvecOar. Middle; ‘go to law,’ ‘seek for judgment.’ Cf. 
kpOjvar (Matt. v. 40; Eccles. vii. 10). The question comes 
with increased force after v. 12, 13. ‘It is no business of ours 
to judge the heathen: and are we to ask them to judge us?’ 

émi tav a8ikwv. ‘Before the unrighteous.’* The term is 
not meant to imply that there was small chance of getting justice 
in a heathen court; St Paul’s own experience had taught him 
otherwise. The term reflects, not on Roman tribunals, but on 
the pagan world to which they belonged. He perhaps chose the 
word rather than dmorév, in order to suggest the paradox of 
seeking justice among the unjust. The Rabbis taught that Jews 
must not carry their cases before Gentiles, and we may be sure 

* Augustine (De doct. Christ. iv. 18) seems to have read bd 7. a6. He 


has, judicaré ab iniguis et non apud sanctos. Vulg. has apud with both 
words, as also has Augustine, Enchir. ad Laurent. 78. 


VI. 1, 2| LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS III 


that it was in the Greek majority at Corinth, and not in the 
Jewish minority, that this evil prevailed.* Greeks were fond of 
litigation, @iAodixod (Arist. Aef. 11. xxiii. 23), and as there were 
no Christian courts they must enter heathen tribunals if they 
wanted to go to law. See Edwards. For emi see 2 Cor. vii. 14; 
Mark xiii. 9; Acts xxv. 9. 

kal odxt émt tOv dytwv. He does not mean that Christian 
courts ought to be instituted, but that Christian disputants should 
submit to Christian arbitration. 


2. 7 odk oiSate. Such conduct was incompatible with prin- 
ciples which ought to be familiar to them. He first asks, ‘How 
can you be so presumptuous?’ ‘Then, on the supposition 
that this is not the cause of their error, he asks, ‘How can 
you be so ignorant?’ The 7 introduces an alternative explana- 
tion. The formula ov« oidare occurs five times in this chapter 
f2-4,°9, Pa,.19);. cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 5, etc.); 

ol dy.ot Tov Kéopov kpivodoww. Here, no doubt, the verb should 
be accented as a future; contrast v. 13. It is in the Messianic 
Kingdom that the saints will share in Christ’s reign over the 
created universe. ‘Judge’ does not here mean ‘condemn,’ and 
‘the world’ does not mean ‘the evil world.’ It is only from the 
context, as in Acts xili. 27, that xpivew sometimes becomes 
equivalent to kataxpivew, and 6 kdcpos frequently is used without 
any idea of moral, z.e. immoral quality ; cf. ili. 22. Indeed, it is 
not clear that xpwotow here means ‘will pronounce judgment 
upon’; it is perhaps used in the Hebraic sense of ‘ruling.’ So 
also in Matt. xix. 28. This sense is frequent in Judges (iii. 10, 
25,3, XU 9, 11, 13, 14, etc.).. Wisd. iil, Sais) paeallel 50° Dhey 
shall judge the nations and have dominion over the peoples’ ; 
also Ecclus. iv. 15. St Paul may have known the Book of 
Wisdom. Cf. the Book of Enoch (cvili. 12), “I will bring forth 
clad in shining light those who have loved My holy Name, and 
I will seat each on the throne of his honour.” ‘The saints are to 
share in the final perfection of the Messianic reign of Christ. 
They themselves are to appear before the Judge (Rom. xiv. 10 ; 
2 Tim. iv. 1) and are then to share His glory (iv. 8; Rom. viii. 17 ; 
Dan. vii. 22; Rev. ii. 26, 27, iii. 21, xx. 4). The Apostle’s 
eschatology (xv. 21-24) supplies hin with the thought of these 
verses. He is certainly not thinking of the time when earthly 
tribunals will be filled with Christian judges.f 

kal et év duty Kpiverat 6 x. The «at adds a further question, 


* To bring a lawsuit before a court of idolaters was regarded as blas- 
phemy against the Law. 

+ Polycarp quotes the question, ‘ Know we not that the saints shall judge 
the world?’ as the doctrine of Paul (P27. 11). 


112 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | VI. 2,3 


and presses home the bearing of the preceding question. The 
ev tpiv is less easy to explain ; ‘among you,’ ‘in your court,’ ‘in 
your jurisdiction,’ may be the meaning. Or we may fall back 
on the instrumental use of év. Like xpivere in v. 12, xpiverac 
expresses what is normal. ‘The heathen are to be judged by 
you; they are in your jurisdiction. How incongruous that you 
should ask to be judged by them !’ 

dvdgiol éote Kpitypiwy éXaxiotwy. ‘Are ye unworthy of the 
smallest tribunals?’ So in RV. marg. Cf. Jas. i. 6; Judg. 
vy. 10; Dan. vii. 10, 26; Susann. 49: also pH epxéoOw emi 
Kpurnpiov eOvixov (Afpost. Const. ii. 45). In papyri, ot éxt tov 
Kpitnpiwy means those who preside in tribunals. ‘The meaning 
‘case’ or ‘cause’ is insufficiently supported. “Avdg.os is found 
nowhere else in N.T. 


D° EL, AV. omit # before ov otéare, 


8. The thought of v. 2 is repeated and expanded. To say 
that Christians will judge angels restates ‘will judge the world’ 
in an extreme form, for the sake of sharpening the contrast. 
"AyyeAo are the highest order of beings under God, yet they are 
creatures and are part of the xdéopos. But the members of 
Christ are to be crowned with glory and honour (Ps. viii. 6), and 
are to share in His regal exaltation, which exceeds any angelic 
dignity. He ‘judges,’ ze. rules over, angels, and the saints 
share in that rule. The words may mean that the saints are to 
be His assessors in the Day of Judgment, that angels will then 
be judged, and that the saints will take part in sentencing them. 
If so, this must refer to fallen angels, for it is difficult to believe 
that St Paul held that all angels, good and bad, will be judged 
hereafter. But he gives no epithet to angels here, because it is 
not needed for his argument ; indeed, to have said ‘ fallen angels,’ 
or ‘evil angels,’ would rather have marred his argument. As 
Evans rightly insists, it is the exalted nature of angels that is the 
Apostle’s point. ‘ You are to judge the world. Nay, you are to 
judge, not only men, but angels. Are you unable to settle petty 
disputes among yourselves?’ St Paul’s purpose is to emphasize 
the augustness of the ‘judging’ to which members of Christ are 
called.* To press the statement in such a way as to raise the 
question of the exact nature, scope, or details, of the judgment 
of angels, is to go altogether beyond the Apostle’s purpose. 
Thackeray (.S¢ Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 152 f.) 
has shown from Jude 6, Wisd. iii. 8, and Enoch xiii.—xvi. that 


* Godet remarks that Paul ne veut pas désigner tels ou tels anges ; il veut 
réveiller dans [église le sentiment de sa compétence et de sa dignité, en lui 
rappelant gue des étres dune nature aussi élevée seront un jour soumis asa 
Jurisdiction. See also Milligan on 1 Thess, iii. 13, and Findlay here. 


VI. 3, 4] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS Ls 


there is nothing in this unique statement to which a Jew of that 
day would not have subscribed. See Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, 
, 213. 

pytiye Bwwtikd. The ye strengthens the force of the pyr, 
which is that of a condensed question; ‘need I so much as 
mention?’ Vedum quae ad hujus vitae usum pertinent (Beza) : 
quanto magts saecudaria. The clause may be regarded as part 
of the preceding question (WH.), or as a separate question 
(AV., RV.), or as an appended remark, ‘to say nothing at all of 
things of this life’ (Ellicott). The adjective occurs Luke xxi. 34, 
but is not found in LXX, nor earlier than Aristotle. Following 
the well-known difference in N.T. between Bios and fwy (see on 
Luke viii. 43), Auwruxd means questions relating to our life. on 
earth on its merely human side, or to the resources of life, such 
as food, clothing, property, etc. Philo (Vit. dos. iii. 18), rpds 
tas Buwtixas xpeias brnperetv. See Trench, Syz. § xxvii. ; Cremer, 
Lex. p. 272; Lightfoot on Ign. Rom. vii. 3. 


M7jrvye is written by different editors as one word, or as two (srt ye), 
or as three. Tregelles is perhaps alone in writing s.7 71 ye. 


4. Biwrikd xpimjpio. ‘Tribunals dealing with worldly 
matters.’ The adj. is repeated with emphasis, which is increased 
by its being placed first. That is the surprising thing, that 
Christians should have Biwrixa that require litigation. 

pev odv. ‘Nay but,’ or ‘Nay rather.’ The force of the 
words is eter to emphasize the cumulative scandal of having 
such cases at all and of bringing them emi rév déikwy, or (if 
xafi¢ere 1 imperative) to advise an alternative course to that 
described in z. 2. 

éav éxnte. This form of protasis (cf. iv. 15) requires a future 
or its equivalent in the apodosis. Here we have an equivalent, 
whether we take xafiCere as imperative or interrogative. ‘If you 
must have such things as courts to deal with these petty matters, 
then set,’ etc.; or ‘do you set?’—‘Is that your way of dealing 
with the matter?’ It is intolerably forced to put a comma after 
Kpityjpia, make it an accus. pendens, and take eav éyyrte with rovs 
efovbevnpévous. 

tos éfoulernpevous év tH exkAnola. If xaGiLere is imperative, 
then these words mean ‘those in the Church who are held of no 
account,’ z.e, the least esteemed of the Christians. The Apostle 
sarcastically tells them that, so far from there being any excuse 
for resorting to heathen tribunals, any selection of the simplest 
among themselves would be competent to settle their disputes 
about trifles. Let the insignificant decide what is insignificant. 

If xaOifere is indicative and the sentence interrogative, then 
these words mean, ‘those who, in the Church, are held of no 


8 


114 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VI. 4,5 


account,’ viz. the ado. of v. 1. The meaning is the same if the 
sentence is categorical. 

Both constructions are possible, and both make good sense. 
Alford, Edwards, Ellicott, Evans, and Lightfoot give strong 
reasons for preferring the imperative, as AV. In this they 
follow a strong body of authorities ; the Vulgate, Peshito, Coptic, 
and Armenian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Beza, Calvin, 
Estius, Bengel, and Wetstein. To mention only one of the 
arguments used ;—it does seem improbable that St Paul would 
call heathen magistrates ‘those who, in the Church, are held of 
no account.’ He has, it is true, spoken of the heathen in 
general (not the magistrates in particular) as aéuco: but here he 
is speaking of those who preside in the heathen tribunals. And 
if he wanted to speak disparagingly of them, is ‘those whom 
Christians despise’ a likely phrase for him to use? The Vulgate 
renders, contemptibiles qui sunt in ecclesia, illos constituite ad 
judicandum; but the Greek means contemptos rather than 
contemptibiles. Augustine also has contemptibiles, but he renders 
rovtous kabilere, hos collocate.* 

Nevertheless, Tischendorf, WH. and the Revisers support a 
considerable number of commentators, from Luther to Schmiedel, 
in punctuating the sentence as a question. It is urged that the 
Apostle, after the reminder of vv. 2, 3, returns to the question of 
v. 1; ‘Will they, by going outside their own body for justice, 
confess themselves, the appointed judges of angels, to be unfit 
to decide the pettiest arbitrations ?’ 7 

We must be content to leave the question open. The 
general sense is clear. The Corinthians were doing a shameful 
thing in going to heathen civil courts to settle disputes between 
Christians. 

Tpos evtpoTyy Spiv A€yw. ‘I say this to move you to shame’; 
see on iv. 14. Asin xv. 34, the words refer to what precedes, 
and they suit either of the interpretations given above, either the 
sarcastic command or the reproachful question; but they suit 
the latter somewhat better. Only here, and xv. 34 does 
evtpory occur in N.T., but it is not rare in the Psalms. 


5. ottws ok €vux.t.A. ‘Is there such a total lack among you 
of any wise person’ that you are thus obliged to go outside? 


* It is evident that xa@lfere is a word which is more suitable for constitut- 
ing simple Christians as arbitrators than for adopting heathen magistrates, 
already appointed, as judges of Christians. 

+ There is yet another way, suggested by J. C. K. Hofmann and 
accepted by Findlay ; ‘ Well then, as for secular tribunals—if you have men 
that are made of no account in the Church, set these on the bench!’ The 
punctuation does not seem to be very probable. 

With the use of rovrous here we may compare rovrous in xvi. 3 and 
Tovrov in 2 Thess. iii. 14. 


VI. 5-7] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 15 


Or, ‘So is there not found among you one wise person?’ The 
outws refers to the condition of things in the Corinthian Church: 
Chrys., tocavtn omravis avdp@v ovverov map’ tiv; it is now 
commonly admitted that évc ‘is not a contraction from éveort, but 
the preposition €v or evi, strengthened by a vigorous accent, like 
ém, mdpa, and used with an ellipse of the substantive verb ” 
(Lightfoot on Gal. ili. 28; J. B. Mayor on Jas. i. 17): translate, 
therefore, ‘is not found.’ 

Siakpivar dvd pécov tod adeApod adrod. A highly condensed 
sentence ; ‘to decide between his fellow-Christian’ meaning ‘to 
act as arbitrator between one fellow-Christian and another.’ We 
want ava pécov ddeAdod Kai rod ad. abrod, like dvi péoov éuod Kal 
god (Gen. xxiii. 15). J. H. Moulton (Gr. p. 99) suspects a 
corruption in the text, but dictation may account for the ab- 
breviation: tév ddeApGv adrod is the simplest conjecture. The 
compound preposition ava éoov is frequent in papyri. As the 
Lord had directed (Matt. xviii. 17), the aggrieved brother ought 
to ‘tell it to the Church.’ * 


Both here and in xv. 34 there is difference of reading between \éyw and 
A@AG. Here Aéyw (NX DEF GL P) is to be preferred to \adG (B, with C 
doubtful). @ (S BCLP) rather than €orw (DEFG). ovdels codds 
(8 BC 17, Copt.) rather than ovdé els copéds (F G P) or codds ovde efs (D3 L) 
or gopéds without ode efs or oddels (D* E, Aeth.). For rod ddeXpod some 
editors conjecture Tay adeA Par. 


6. GAG adeApds «.7.A. We have the same doubt as that 
respecting payteye Biwtixa (v. 3). This verse may be a con- 
tinuation of the preceding question (WH., RV.), or a separate 
question (AV.), or an appended statement (Ellicott). In the 
last case, dAAd is ‘ Nay,’ ‘On the contrary.’ 

kat todto, This is the climax. ‘That there should be dis- 
putes about Biwria is bad; that Christian should go to law 
with Christian is worse; that Christians should do this before 
unbelievers is worst of all. It is a scandal before the heathen 
world. Cf. kai rodro (Rom. xiii. 11; 3 John 5) and the more 
classical xat tatra (Heb. xi. 12), of which Wetstein gives 
numerous examples. 


7. 78n pev odv. ‘Nay, verily there is at once,’ ‘there is to 
begin with, without going any further’: pév ody, separate, as in 
v. 4, and with no 6€¢ to answer to the pe. 

ddws. ‘Altogether,’ ze. no matter what the tribunal may be: 
or ‘generally,’ ‘under any circumstances,’ ze. no matter what 
the result may be. 

qtmpa. ‘A falling short’ of spiritual attainment, or of 


* Cicero (Ad Fam. ix. 25) writes to Papirius Paetus, Mold pati hitigare 
Sratres, et judicits turpibus confirctaré. 


116 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIL 7 


Christian blessings, ‘a defect’ (RV.), or possibly ‘a defeat.’ 
They have been worsted in the spiritual fight. Origen here 
contrasts #rracGac with vixav.* Cf. Isa. xxxi. 8, of 68 veavioxor 
Zcovrat eis yrrnpa. In Rom. xi. 12 the meaning seems to be 
‘defeat’ (see note there), and these are the only passages in the 
Bible in which the word occurs. See Field, Otum Norvic. 
ill. 97. 

kpivata. Elsewhere in N.T. the word means ‘decrees’ or 
‘judgments,’ but here it is almost equivalent to xpirjpra (v. 4): 
‘matters for judgment,’ ‘ lawsuits.’ 

pe éautdv. Literally, ‘with your own selves.’ It is pos- 
sible that this use of pe@ éavrdy for per’ ddAA7jAwv is deliberate, 
in order to show that in bringing a suit against a fellow-Christian 
they were bringing a suit against themselves, so close was the 
relationship. ‘The solidarity of the Church made such conduct 
suicidal. But the substitution occurs where no such idea can be 
understood (Mark xvi. 3). 

There are passages in M. Aurelius which are very much in 
harmony with these verses. He argues that men are kinsmen, 
and that all wrong-doing is the result of ignorance. ‘Those who 
know better must be patient with those who know not what 
they do in being insolent and malicious. ‘But I, who have 
seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad 
that it is base (aioypov), and the nature of him that does the 
wrong, that it is akin to me, not so much by community of 
blood and seed as by community of intelligence and divine 
endowment,—I can neither be injured by any of them, for no 
one can fix on me what is base; nor can I be angry with one 
who is my kinsman, nor feel hatred against him” (ii. 1). “On 
every occasion a man should say, This comes from God: this 
is from one of the same tribe and family and society, but from 
one who does not know what befits his nature. But I know; 
therefore I treat him according to the natural law of fellowship 
with kindness and justice” (iii. 11} ‘‘ With what are you so 
displeased? with the badness of men? Consider the decision, 
that rational beings exist for one another, and that to be patient 
is a part of righteousness, and that men do wrong against their 
will” (iv. 3). 

ASixeicbe, Amoatepetcbe. ‘Endure wrong,’ ‘endure depriva- 
tion.’ The verbs are middle, not passive. 

* He says that the man who accepts injury without retaliating vevikyxev, 
while the man who brings an action against a fellow-Christian #rra@rar. He 
is worsted, has lost his cause, by the very fact of entering a law-court. Simil- 
arly, Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 14, which is a commentary on this section ; 
‘*To say then that the wronged man goes to law before the wrongdoers is 


nothing else than to say that he desires to retaliate and wishes to do wrong 
to the second in return, which is likewise to do wrong also himself.” 


Wi. 8} LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 7 


Hin pev ody (SBA BCDSELP, Aeth.); omit ody (N* D* 17, Vulg. 
Copt. Arm.). The ovis probably genuine. A omits dAws. The év before 
duty has very little authority ; est 2 vodbzs (Vulg.). 


8. &\AG Spets. ‘Whereas you, on the contrary.2 The em- 
phatic pronoun contrasts their conduct with what is fitting. 
‘Not content with refusing to exdure wrong (and as Christians 
you ought to be ready to endure it), you yourselves zn/ict it, 
and that on fellow-Christians’;—a climax of unchristian con- 
duct. Matt. v. 39-41 teaches far otherwise ; and the substance 
of the Sermon on the Mount would be known to them. ‘The 
sentence is not part of the preceding question.* 


D transposes ddicetre and dmogrepetre. For rodro, L, Arm., Chrys., 
Thdrt. have taira, perhaps to cover the two verbs. 


9-1l. Unrighteousness in all its forms is a survival from 
a bad past, which the Corinthians ought to have left 
behind them. 


Evil-doers, such as some of you were, cannot enter the 
Kingdom. 


®Is this wilfulness on your part, or is it that you do not 
know that wrong-doers will have no share in the Kingdom? 
Do not be led astray by false teachers. No fornicator, idolater, 
adulterer, sensualist, sodomite, ! thief, cheat, drunkard, reviler, 
or extortioner will have any share in God’s Kingdom. ™ And 
of such vile sort some of you once were. But you washed your 
pollutions away, you were made holy, you were made righteous, 
by sharing in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the 
gift of the Spirit of God. 

These three verses conclude the subject of vv. 1-8 by an 
appeal to wider principles, and thus prepare the way for the 
fourth matter of censure (12-20). The connexion with vv. 1-8 
is definite, although not close. The Corinthians have shown 
themselves ddixor, in the narrower sense of ‘unjust,’ by their 
conduct to one another (dé:xeire, v. 8). They need, however, 
to be reminded that aéc«/a in any sense (see note below) excludes 
a man from the heritage of God’s Kingdom. The Apostle goes 
on to specify several forms of déucéa which they ought to have 
abandoned, and finally returns to the subject of zopveda. 

* It is remarkable that in six verses we have four cases in which there Is 


doubt whether the sentence is interrogative or not; vv. 3, 4, 6, 8. In this 
last case the interrogative is very improbable. See also on v. 13. 


118 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI.9 


9. % otk ol8atre. See vv. 2 and 19. There is an alternative 
implied. ‘[Is it from a reckless determination to do as they 
please regardless of the consequences, | or is it from real ignor- 
ance of the consequences?’ In either case their error is disas- 
trous. 

dicot. The word is suggested by the previous dd:xeire, and 
this should be marked in translation ; ‘ye do wrong’. .. ‘wrong- 
doers shall not inherit.’ No English version preserves the 
connexion ; nor does the Vulgate, zmjurtam facilis . . . inigut:; 
but Beza does so, injuriam facitis . . . tnjustos. Now the word 
takes a wider meaning; it is wrongdoing of any kind, and not 
the special kind of being unjust in matters of personal rights, 
that is meant; and here the Apostle passes to a more compre- 
hensive survey of the spiritual state of his readers, and also to 
a sterner tone: eis dmeAnv KxataxAcle tiv tapatveow (Chrys.). 
The evil that he has now to deal with is the danger of Gentile 
licentiousness. 

©cod Baothetav. When St Paul uses the shorter form, ‘ God’s 
Kingdom’ (v. 10, xv. 50; Gal. v. 21), instead of the more usual 
7 Bas. rod ©. (iv. 20; Rom. xiv. 17; 2 Thess. i. 5 ; cf. Eph. v. 5), 
he elsewhere writes Bas. @cov. Here coi is placed first, in order 
to bring déuxou and @eod into emphatic contrast by juxtaposition: 
‘wrong-doers’ are manifestly out of place in ‘Gods Kingdom.’ 
Cf. rpdcwrov Obs dvOpdrrov od Aap Paver (Gal. ii. 6). ‘To inherit 
the Kingdom of God’ is a Jewish thought, in allusion to the 
promise given to Abraham ; but St Paul, in accordance with his 
doctrine of grace, enlarges and spiritualizes the idea of inherit- 
ance. He reminds the Corinthians that, although all Christians 
are heirs, yet heirs may be disinherited. They may disqualify 
themselves. In iv. 20, the Kingdom is regarded as present. 
Here and xv. 50 it is regarded as future. It is both: see 
J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, p. 24; Dalman, Words, p. 125; 
Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, p. 576. 

Mi} tAavaobe. See on Luke xxi. 8. The verb is passive, 
‘Do not be led astray,’ and implies fundamental error.* The 
revisers sometimes correct the ‘deceived’ of AV. to ‘led astray,’ 
but here and xv. 50 they retain ‘deceived.’ The charge is a 
sharper repetition of 7 ov« oidare. Some Jews held that the 
belief in one God sufficed without holiness of life. Judaizers 
may have been teaching in Corinth that faith sufficed. 

* Origen illustrates thus ; ‘‘Let no one lead you astray with persuasive 
words, saying that God is merciful, kind, and loving, and ready to forgive 
sins, 

t Duchesne thinks that there is nothing in 1 or 2 Corinthians ‘‘ to lead to 
the conclusion that the Apostle’s rivals had introduced Judaizing tendencies 


in Corinth” (Zarly Hist. of the Chr. Church, p. 23). That can hardly be 
maintained respecting 2 Corinthians, and is very disputable about this Epistle. 


VL. 9-11] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 119 


The order of the ten kinds of offenders is unstudied. He 
enumerates sins which were prevalent at Corinth just as they 
occur to him. Of the first five, three (and perhaps four) deal 
with sinners against purity, while the fifth, ‘idolaters,’ were 
frequently sinners of the same kind. Of the last five, three are 
sinners against personal property or rights, such as are censured 
inv. 8. All of them are in apposition to ad:«or, an apposition 
which would seem quite natural to Greeks, who were accustomed 
to regard duxatoovvy as the sum-total of virtues (Arist. th. Mic. 
v. i. 15), and therefore décxéa as the sum-total of vices (cé7d. § 19: 
see on Luke xiii. 27). Several of these forms of evil are dealt 
with in this Epistle (vv. 13-18, v. 1, 11, vili., 10, x. 14, etc.): 
ee ROM. 1:27 and ill. 13; Gal. v..19,;.20; £ Tim. 1. 10.* 


For Qeod Bacidelav, L, def Vulg. have the more usual Bac. Ocos. D* 
has ov6é throughout vv. 9, 10. od wéPvco. (N AC P17) rather than ovré 
ué0. (BD° EL). LP insert od before xAnpovoujcovow at the end of 
v. 10. 


11. kat taitd twes Are. ‘And such dreadful things as these 
some of you weve.’ While the neuter indicates a horror of what 
has been mentioned, the twes and the tense lighten the sad 
statement. Not all of them, not even many, but only some, 
are said to have been guilty; and it is all a thing of the past. 
Cf. #re in Rom. vi. 17. 

&\Ad. The threefold ‘But’ emphasizes strongly the contrast 
between their present state and their past, and the consequent 
demand which their changed moral condition makes upon them. 

dtmehovcacbe. Neither ‘ye are washed’ (AV.), nor ‘ye were 
washed’ (RV.), nor ‘ye washed yourselves’ (RV. marg.), but 
‘ye washed them away from you,’ ‘ye washed away your sins’; 
exactly as in Acts xxii. 16, the only other place in N.T. in which 
the compound verb occurs ; avacras Barticat kai amoAoveat Tas 
dpaptias gov. Their seeking baptism was their own act, and 
they entered the water as voluntary agents, just as St Paul 
mia. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 21. 

HytdoOnte, eSixaiwOyre. The repetitions of the aorist show 
that these verbs refer to the same event as deAovcacbe. The 


* There is a manifest reproduction of vv. 9, 10 in Ign. Eph. 16; also in 
Ep. of Polycarp, 5. On the general sense of the two verses see Sanday on 
St Paul’s Equivalent for the Kingdom of Heaven, /7'S. July 1900, pp. 481 f. 

Aristot. (#74. Wzce. vil. iv. 4) says that people are called padaxol in 
reference to the same things as they are called dxédaoro, viz. mepl ras 
owpuarikas drodatces: Plato (Rep. vill. 556B) mpds ndovds re kal dvras. 
Origen here gives the word a darker meaning. See Deissmann, Light, p. 150. 
He gives a striking illustration of the list of vices here and elsewhere, derived 
from counters in an ancient game. Each counter had the name of a vice or a 
virtue on it ; and in the specimens in museums the vices greatly preponderate 


(pp. 320f.). 


120 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VI. 12-20 


crisis, of which their baptism was the concrete embodiment, 
had marked their transition from the rule of self to the service 
of God (consecration), and from the condition of guilty sinners 
to that of pardoned children of God (justification). Neither of 
the verbs here is to be taken in the technical theological sense 
which each of them sometimes bears : cf. dy:or (i. 2) and #yiaorac 
(vii. 14). Here édicaus6yre forms a kind of climax, completing 
the contrast with ddixoi (v. 9). The new life is viewed here as 
implicit in the first decisive turn to Christ, which again was 
inseparably connected with their baptism. Cf. Rom. vi. 7. 
év T@ dvopatt t. k. I. Xp. As in Acts ii. 38, x. 483 cf. eis To 
ov., Acts vili. 16, xix. 5. Matt. xxviii. 1g is the only passage in 
which the Trinitarian form is found. See Hastings, D&. 1. 
p. 241f. This passage is remarkable as being an approach 
to the Trinitarian form, for €v ré [lvevpare is coupled with ‘in 
the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ,’ and rod @eod is added ; so 
that God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit are all 
mentioned. But it is doubtful whether this verse can be taken 
as evidence of a baptismal formula. Godet certainly goes too 
far in claiming it as zmplying the use of the threefold Name (see 
on Matt. xxvili. 19). But it is right to take év r@ dvopati x.7.A, 
with all three verbs. Cf. “‘saved in His Name” (Enoch, xlviii. 7). 
BCP17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. insert quay after rod Kuplov: 
SADELomit. It is not easy to decide. NS BCD*EP, Vulg. Copt. 
Arm. Aeth. insert Xpicroo after "Incod: A D*L omit. The word is pro- 


bably genuine. In both cases the evidence of C is not clear: there is 
space for the word, but it is not legible. 


VI. 12-20. THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION IN THE 
LIGHT OF FIRST PRINCIPLES. 


Christian freedom ts not licentiousness. Our bodies were 
not made for unchastity. The body is a temple of the 
Spirit. 


12 Perhaps I may have said to you at some time ; In all things 
I can do as I like. Very possibly. But not all things that I 
may do do me good. In all things I can do as I like, but I 
shall never allow anything to do as it likes with me. I am 
not going to let myself be the slave of appetite. It is true that 
the stomach and food were made for one another. Yet they 
were not made to last tor ever: the God who made them will 
put an end to both. But it is not true that the body was made 
for fornication. The body is there to serve the Lord, and the 


VI. 12-20| THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION I2I 


Lord is there to have the body for His service: and as God 
raised Him from the dead, so will He also raise us up by His own 
power. }° Js it that you do not know that your bodies are members 
of Christ? Shall I then take away from Christ members which 
are His and make them members of a harlot? Away with so 
dreadful a thought! 1®Or is it that you do not know that the 
union of a man with his harlot makes the two to be one body ? 
I am-not exaggerating ; for the Scripture says, The two shall 
become one flesh. 17 But the union of a man with the Lord 
makes the two to be one spirit. 18 Do not stop to parley with 
fornication: turn and fly. In the case of no other sin is such 
grievous injury done to the body as in this case: the fornicator 
sins against his own body. 1}° Does that statement surprise you ? 
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, 
who makes His home in you, being sent for that very purpose 
from God? And, what is more, you are not your own property, 
but God’s. He paid a high price for you. Surely you are 
bound to use to His glory the body which He has bought. 


12-20. St Paul now passes to a fourth matter for censure. 
He has already taken occasion, in connexion with a specially 
flagrant case of wopveia, to blame the lack of moral discipline 
in the community. He now takes up the subject of zopvea 
generally, dealing with it in the light of first principles. The 
sin was prevalent at Corinth (v. 9, vil. 2; 2 Cor. xii. 21), and 
was virtually condoned by public opinion in Greece and in 
Rome. Moreover, the Apostle’s own teaching as to Christian 
liberty (Rom. y.-20, vi. 14) had been perverted and caricatured, 
not only by opponents (Rom. iii. 8), but also by some ‘emanci- 
pated’ Christians at Corinth itself. The latter had made it an 
excuse for licence. He proceeds now to show the real meaning 
and scope of Christian liberty, and in so doing sets forth the 
Christian doctrine of the body as destined for eternal union 
with Christ. 


12. mévra po ééeotv. These are St Paul’s own words (see 
on x. 23). ‘They may have been current among the Corinthians 
as a trite maxim. If so, the Apostle here adopts them as his 
own, adding the considerations which limit their scope. More 
probably they were words he had used, which were well known 
as his, and which had been misused by persons whom he now 
proceeds to warn. Of course, ravta is not absolute in extent: 


122 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 12 


no sane person would maintain that it was meant to cover such 
things as wopveca and justify wavoupyia. It covers, however, a very 
great deal, viz. the whole of that wide range of things which are 
not wrong fer se. But within this wide range of things which 
are indifferent, and therefore permissible, there are many things 
which become wrong, and therefore not permissible, in view of 
principles which are now to be explained. 

pou eteotiv. Saepe Paulus prima persona singulari eloguitur, 
quae vim habent gnomes ; in hac praesertim eptstola, v. 15, Vil. 7, 
Vili. 13, X. 23, 29, 30, xiv. 11 (Beng.). The saying applies to 
all Christians. On its import see J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, 
PP. 51; 52. ‘ Meese 

GAN’ od mdvta cupdéeper. Liberty is limited by the law of the 
higher expediency, z.e. by reference to the moral or religious life 
of all those who are concerned, viz. the agent and those whom 
his conduct may influence. In this first point the Apostle is 
possibly thinking chiefly of the people influenced.* We have no 
longer any right to do what in itself is innocent, when our doing 
it will have a bad effect on others. Our liberty is abused when 
our use of it causes grave scandal. 

odk éy® efouctacOycopat bd twos. This is the second point ; 
really included in the higher law of expediency, but requiring to 
be stated separately, in order to show that the agent, quite apart 
from those whom his conduct may influence, has to be con- 
sidered. What effect will his action have upon himself? We 
have no longer any right to do what in itself is innocent, when 
experience has proved that our doing it has a bad effect on our- 
selves. Our liberty is abused when our use of it weakens our 
character and lessens our power of self-control. St Paul says 
that, for his part, he ‘will zo¢ be brought under the power of 
anything.’ The ov« is emphatic, and the ey« slightly so, but 
very slightly: the €y# is rendered almost necessary by the pre- 
ceding po. We must beware of using liberty in such a way as 
to dose it, e.g. in becoming slaves to a habit respecting things 
which in themselves are lawful. ‘The twos is neuter, being one 
of the wavra. 

The verb efovova£ew is chosen because of its close connexion 
with éfeore through efovcta: it is frequent in LXX, especially in 
Ecclesiastes ; in N.T., vii. 4 and Luke xxii. 25.¢ This play on 
words cannot be reproduced exactly in English; perhaps ‘I can 
make free with all things, but I shall zo¢ let anything make free 


* In x. 23f., where St Paul again twice quotes his own wdvra wot Efeorw, 
he is certainly thinking chiefly of the people influenced. 

+ Nowhere else does the passive occur. But in late Greek the rule that 
only verbs which have an accusative can be used in the passive is not observed. 
See Lightfoot on doyparlfecbe (Col. ii. 20). 


VI. 12,18] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 123 


with me’ may serve to show the kind of thought: mzhi res non 
me rebus submittere conor. 

These two verses (12, 13) are a kind of preface to the subject 
of zopveia, to show that it is not one of those things which may 
or may not be lawful according to circumstances. It is in all 
circumstances wholly outside the scope of Christian liberty, how- 
ever that liberty may be defined. ‘While many things are lawful, 
and become wrong only if indulged (like the appetite for food) 
to an extent that is harmful to ourselves or to others, fornication 
is not a legitimate use of the body, but a gross abuse of it, being 
destructive of the purpose for which the body really exists.’ 

13. Ta Bpwpata . . . Tots Bpwpacw. It is quite possible that 
some of the Corinthians confused what the Apostle here so 
clearly distinguishes, the appetite for food and the craving for 
sensual indulgence. ‘‘We have traces of this gross moral con- 
fusion in the Apostolic Letter (Acts xv. 23-29), where things 
wholly diverse are combined, as directions about meats to be 
avoided and a prohibition of fornication” (Lightfoot). The 
Apostles, who framed these regulations, did not regard them as 
on the same plane, but the heathen, for whom they were framed, 
did. St Paul makes the distinction luminously clear. Not only 
are meats made for the belly, but the belly, which is essential to 
physical existence, is made for meats, and cannot exist without 
them. There is absolute correlation between the two, as long as 
earthly life lasts: but no longer, for both of them will eventually 
be done away. When the capa ceases to be Yuyxixov and becomes 
mvevpatikov (xv. 44), neither the Bpdpara nor the xovAia will have 
any further function, and therefore ‘God will bring to nought’ 
both of them. 

76 8€ cGpa od TH Topveta. No such relation exists between 
the cdpa and zopveia as between the xoAla and Bpwpata. The 
supposed parallel breaks down in two essential particulars. 
(1) The cépa was not made for zopveia, but for the Lord, in 
order to be a member of Christ, who lived and died to redeem 
it. (2) The cdye is not, like the xovA‘a, to be brought to nought, 
but to be transformed and glorified (Phil. iii. 21). ‘The ‘body’ 
is contrasted with ‘flesh and blood’ (xv. 37, 50), and the xowA/a 
belongs to the latter, and has only a temporal purpose, whereas 
the ‘body’ has an eternal purpose. So far, therefore, from 
mopveia standing to the body in the same relation as meats to the 
belly, it fatally conflicts with the body’s essential destiny, which 
is membership with Christ. 

It is possible that in selecting the relation between appetite 
and food as a contrast to zopve/a St Paul is indirectly discourag- 
ing Judaistic distinctions of meats, or ascetic prohibitions of flesh 


124 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VI. 13,14 


and wine. No kind of food is forbidden to the Christian. But 
even if there had been no Judaizers at work in Corinth, and no 
tendency towards asceticism, he would probably have selected 
the relation between Bpwpata and xorA‘a for his purpose. The 
argument is still used, “If I may gratify one bodily appetite, 
why may I not gratify another? JVaturalia non sunt turpia. 
Omnia munda mundts.” 

kal 6 Kuptos T@ owpatt. A startling assertion of perfect corre- 
lation: guanta dignatio/ (Beng.). The Son of God, ‘sent in the 
likeness of sinful flesh,’ has His purpose and destiny, viz. to 
dwell in and glorify the body (Rom. viii. 23) which is united 
with Him through the Spirit (v. 17); and it is lawful to say that 
He is for it as well as it for Him. 


14. 6 8€ @eds. This is parallel to 6 6 eds in v. 13, and puts 
the contrast between the two cases in a very marked way. In 
the case of the xoAéa, and the Bpwpara to which it is related, 
God will reduce both of them to nothingness. In the case of 
the oGpa, and the Kvpuos to which it is related, God has raised 
the Kupuos, and will raise up the oda of every one who is a 
member of Him. The contrast between the two cases is com- 
plete. On the other hand, the close relationship between the 
Lord and all true Christians is shown by the doubled conjunc- 
tion; kat tov Kvpiuov ... Kat mas. See Sanday (Zhe Life of 
Christ in Recent Research, p. 132) on the view that it was St Paul 
who deified Christ. 

The change from the simple (7yepev) to the compound verb 
(eeyepe?) has perhaps little meaning. In late Greek, compounds 
do not always have any additional force, and the difference is 
not greater than that between ‘raise’ and ‘raise up.’ The com- 
pound may be used to mark the future raising as not less sure 
than the one which is past, and it is well to mark the difference, 
as RV. does. AV., with ‘raise up’ for both, ignores the change, 
as does Vulg., suscitavit . . . suscttabit, and Iren. int. (Vv. vi. 2). 
The compound occurs only here and Rom. ix. 17 in N.T.; in 
LXX it is very frequent. See on éeéararara, iii. 18. 

81a THs Suvdpews abrod. This may qualify both verbs, but is 
more appropriate to égeyepet. There was need to remind the 
Corinthians of God’s power, in order to confirm their belief in 
their own future resurrection (xv. 12); but no one who believed 
that Christ had been raised needed to be reminded of that: cf. 
Matt. xxii. 29. It is worth observing that St Paul does not take 
any account of ‘the quick’ who will not need to be raised. 
Contrast xv. 51; 1 Thess. iv. 15 f.; Rom. viii. 11. 

eteyepet (NS C D? E K L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth.) is probably to be pre- 
ferred to egeyelpec (A D* Q, de suscitat), or to e&tyyecpev (B, Am. suscitavit). 
éfeyerpet (P) may be regarded as supporting either of the first two, of which 


VI. 14,15] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 125 


éfeyelpec may be safely set aside. It is possible that B has preserved the 
original reading, for no intelligent copyist would alter éfeyepet into é&+yepev, 
but an unintelligent one might assimilate the second verb to the first. If 
efipyerpev is regarded as original it may be explained as referring to spiritual 
resurrection to newness of life, or possibly as referring to our resurrection as 
comprised potentially in that of Christ : ‘God both raised the Lord and (by so 
doing) raised up us.’ But it is unlikely that the Apostle would have obscured 
the certainty of the future resurrection of the body by using language which 
would have encouraged Hymenzus and Philetus (2 Tim. ii. 17, 18). Qu 
dominum suscitavit, et nos suscitabit (Tert. Mare. v. 7). 


15. ovx oiSate x.t.X. He presses home the principle that ‘the 
body is for the Lord.’ By virtue of that principle every Christian, 
and every one of his members, is a member of Christ. The 
higher heathen view was that man’s body is in common with the 
brutes, 70 c@pma Kowov zpos ta fa, and only his reason and 
intelligence in common with the gods (Epict. Déssert. 1. iii. r) ; 
but the Christian view is 70 cpa p€Aos Tod Xpictod.* Epictetus 
speaks of both God and gods, and in popular language calls God 
‘Zeus.’ In this chapter he speaks of God as the father of men 
and gods; but, at the best, he falls far short of Christian Theism. 
The Christian view, which first appears here, is developed in 
another connexion in xii. and in Rom. xii. See also Eph. iv. 15, 
16, v. 30. 

apas odv. The AV. misses a point in translating, ‘Shall I 
then fake the members of Christ?’ The RV. has, ‘Shall I then 
take away the members of Christ?’ Aipew is not simply, ‘to 
take,’ which is AapBavew, but either ‘to take up,’ ‘raise’ (Acts 
Xxvil. 17), or ‘to take away’ (v. 2; Eph. iv. 31; Col. ii. 14; and 
nowhere else in Paul). The verb is very common in Gospels 
and Acts; elsewhere rare in N.T. The Apostle assumes that 
union with a harlot, unlike union with a lawful wife, robs Christ 
of members which belong to Him. Union with Christ attaches 
to our body through the spirit (v. 17), and sin is apostasy from 
the spiritual union with Christ. This is true of all sin, but 
mopveta is a peculiarly direct blow at the principle 76 céya ro 
Kupiv. Quantum flagitium est, corpus nostrum a sacra illa con- 
junctione abreptum ad res Christo indignas transferri (Calv.). As 
Augustine remarks (De Civ. Det xxi. 25), “they cannot be at 
once the members of Christ and the members of a harlot.” 

toijow. It is impossible and unimportant to decide whether 
moijow is deliberative subjunctive (‘Am I to take away . . . and 
make ?’) or future indicative (‘Shall I take away?’ etc.). The two 
aorists would mark two.aspects, simultaneous in effect, of one and 
the same act. But the future harmonizes better with pi yévorro. 
AV., RV., Alford, Edwards, Ellicott, B. Weiss prefer the future. 


* Origen says, wé\y tére yiverar Xpiorod, bre wdvra Kara rdv avrod Nbyov 
Kivouper. 


126 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 15, 16 


ph yévoiro, Like ovx oidare, this expression of strong dissent 
is frequent in this group of the Pauline Epistles (Romans, ten 
times; Galatians, twice; and here). Elsewhere in N.T., Luke 
xx. 16. It is rare in LXX, and never stands as an independent 
sentence: Gen. xliv. 7, 17; Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16; 1 Kings xx. 
[xxi.] 3. It is one of several translations of the same Hebrew, 
another of which is fAews (1 Chron. xi. 19; 2 Sam. xx. 20; Matt. 
xvi. 22). Neither pa yévorro nor ‘Aews is confined to Jewish and 
Christian writings: the former is frequent in Arrian, the latter is 
found in inscriptions. In Hom. Od. vii. 316 we have py Totro 
dirov Aui rarpi yevoro, of detaining Ulysses against his wish. 
Cf. Di meliora. Here it expresses horror. 


After ra odyara there is the common confusion between judy (N* BC D 
EFGKLP, Latt.) and juav (S* A). dpa (P and a few cursives) or } dpa 
(F G) cannot be regarded as more probable than dpas (X§ A BC DE, etc.) ; 
yet Baljon adopts it: dpas has much force, not only in marking the grievous 
wrong done to Christ, but also in showing the voluntary, and even deliberate, 
character of the act. 


16. 4 odk otSare. Again (v. 2) we have this reproachful 
question. The Apostle proceeds to corroborate the zoujow 
mopvns méAn Of V. 15. 

6 ko\A\wpevos. The word may come from mporko\AGo Oat in 
Gen. ii. 24, as in Eph. v. 31, or possibly from Ecclus. xix. 2, 6 
KOAAwpevos TOpvats TOAUNpOTEpos e€oTat. Both the simple and the 
compound verb are frequent in LXX; in N.T. the compound is 
very rare. In both, only the passive, with reflective sense, is 
found. In N.T. the usual construction is the simple dat., as 
here. In LXX the constr. varies greatly, and there (2 Kings 
xviii. 6; cf. Ecclus. ii. 3) we have xoAAGoGar to Kupiw, as here, to 
express loyal and permanent adherence, resulting in complete 
spiritual union. This is placed in marked contrast to the 
temporary physical union which is so monstrous. The verb is 
frequent in Zp. Barnabas (ix. 9, X. 11, xix. 2, 6, Xx. 2). 

€covtat ydp, pyaiv, ot S00 eis o- p. The subject to be under- 
stood with ¢yaiv must always depend upon the context. ‘The 
word may introduce the objection of an opponent (2 Cor. x. 10). 
In Heb. viii. 5 we must understand ‘God.’ Here we may do 
the same, or (what amounts to the same) supply 7 ypady. The 
ein in xv. 27, and the Aéye in 2 Cor. vi. 2, and Gal. iii. 16, and 
Eph. iv. 8, are similar. In each case there is divine authority 
for the statement. The quotation is direct from the LXX, 
which has of dvo, as in Matt. xix. 5 ; Mark x. 8; Eph. v. 31, 
although it is not in the original. For etvac eis=yiveoOar there 
is perhaps no exact parallel in N-.T., although the expression is 
frequent ; xiv. 22; 2 Cor. vi. 18; Eph. i. 12; Heb. i. 5, vill. 10; 
etc. In most of these cases eis may mean ‘to serve as.’ It is 


VI. 18] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 127 


manifest that here no distinction is to be drawn between cédpa 
and odpé. 


18. gevyete thy wopveiav. ‘Do not stop to dispute about it: 
make a practice (pres. imperat.) of flying at once.’ So also of 
idolatry, which was so closely allied with impurity, x. 14. The 
asyndeton marks the urgency. Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 3. 

Tav Gudptnpa «.t.A. The difficulty of this passage lies in the 
distinction drawn between €xrds 7. cwpards, the predicate of 
‘every sin that a man doeth,’ and é¢is r. idvov cma, as marking the 
distinctive sin of the fornicator. Commentators differ greatly 
as to the explanation of éxrds 7. owmatos, which is the specially 
difficult expression. But the general meaning of vv. 3b-18 is 
plain. The body has an eternal destiny, rd cua rd Kupio. 
Fornication takes the body away from the Lord and robs it of its 
glorious future, of which the presence of the Spirit is the present 
guarantee (cf. Rom. viii. 9-11). In v. 18 we have the sharply 
cut practical issue, ‘Flee fornication.’ Clearly the words that 
follow are meant to strengthen the severitas cum fastidio of the 
abrupt imperative: they are not an anti-climax. Any exegesis 
which fails to satisfy this elementary requirement may be set 
aside; and for this reason the explanations of Evans, Meyer, 
and Heinrici may be passed over. 

It is obvious that €xrds and eis are related as opposites. The 
meaning of either will help to determine the meaning of the 
other; and the meaning of «is rt. idvov cua dpaprave is fairly 
certain. For auapravey eis, by the common usage of secular and 
Biblical Greek, means ‘to sin agazns¢.’ It cannot mean ‘sin zx,’ 
or ‘sin by means of, or ‘involve in sin.’ What then does ‘to 
sin against one’s own body’ mean? ‘The axiom, 7d cépa 7o 
Kupiw, kal 6 Kipwos td oopatr, answers this question. To sin 
against one’s own body is to defraud it of its part in Christ, to cut 
it off from its eternal destiny. ‘This is what fornication does in a 
unique degree.* While fornication is «is 76 tdtoy o., other sins 
are €xros tov a. The one phrase is the opposite of the other. 
What St Paul asserts of fornication he denies of every other 
sin. 

In what sense does he deny of all other sins that they are sins 
against a man’s own body? If pressed and made absolute, the 
denial becomes a paradox. He has just told us (vz. g, 10) that 

* Alford puts a similar view somewhat differently. The Apostle’s 
assertion ‘‘is s¢vzctly true. Drunkenness and gluttony are sins done z7 and dy 
the body, and are sins 4y abuse of the body, but they are zmtroduced from with- 
out, sinful in their effect, which effect it is each man’s duty to foresee and avoid. 
But fornication is the a/tenating that body which ts the Lord's, and making 


it a harlot’s body ; it is not an effect on their body from participation of things 
without, but a contradiction of the truth of the body, wrought wthin itself.” 


128 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI, 18, 19 


there are many sins which exclude their doer from the Kingdom, 
and which therefore deprive the body of its future life in Christ. 
Obviously, he is here speaking relatively, and by way of com- 
parison. All other sins are éxros rod o., in the sense that they 
do not, as directly as fornication does, alienate the body from 
Christ, its Life and its Goal. 

This explanation gains in clearness if we compare the words 
of our Lord (Matt. xii. 31), taca dpapria kai Braocdypia adeby- 
cera Tos dvOpwrois* 7) b€ Tod Ilvevpatos BAacdypla oik apeOyoerat, 
«.7.’.. There too the language may be comparative. We know 
abundantly from Scripture that there is forgiveness for every 
sin, if rightly sought. In the first clause the Saviour does not 
proclaim an absolute indiscriminate amnesty for every other sin: 
any sin, unrepented and unabsolved, is an aidvov dpaprnpa 
(Mark iii. 29). Neither clause is to be pressed beyond its purpose 
to an absolute sense. But sin against the Spirit is so incom- 
parably less pardonable than any other, that, by comparison with 
it, they may be regarded as venial. He who sins against the 
Spirit is erecting a barrier, insuperable to a unique degree, against 
his own forgiveness. In like manner, the words exrds rod o. 
€otu are not absolutely nor unconditionally predicated of ‘every 
sin which a man doeth’:* they merely assert that other sins 
‘stop short of the baleful import of sensual sin” with its direct 
onslaught on the dominant principle, 76 cépa tO Kipiw. CF. 
Hos. vi. 6, §I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,’ which does not 
mean that sacrifice is forbidden, but that mercy is greatly 
superior. Luke x. 20, xiv. 12, 13, xxiii. 28 are similar. Cf. ix. 
Toy X24, 33. 


19. # odk oi8are, ‘Or, if you cannot see that unchastity is a 
sin against your own body, are you ignorant that the body of 
each of you is a sanctuary (John ii. 21) of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 
vill. 11; 2 Cor. vi. 16; 2 Tim.i. 14)?’ What in iii. 16 he stated 
of the Christian community as a whole, he here states of every 
member of it. In each case he appeals to facts which ought to 
be well known, as in wv. 2, 3, 9, 15, 16, v. 6, ix. 13, 24; Rom. 
vi. 19, xi. 2. Excepting Jas. iv. 4, the expression is peculiar to 
these Epistles. Note the emphatic position of déyéov: ‘ it is a Spirit 
that is Ao/y that is in you.’ In the temple of Aphrodite at 
Corinth, zopvefa was regarded as consecration: the Corinthians 
are here told that it is a monstrous desecration (Findlay). 
Epictetus (D7s. ii. 8) says, ‘‘Wretch, you are carrying God with 
you, and you know it not. Do you think I mean some god of 
silver or gold? You carry Him within yourself, and perceive not 
that you are polluting Him by impure thoughts and dirty deeds.” 


* On édy in relative sentences see Deissmann, Bid/e Studies, pp. 201 f. 


—— a 


VI. 19, 20] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 129 


ob éxete Gd ©. The relative is attracted out of its own case, 
as often. Not content with emphasizing ‘holy,’ he gives further 
emphasis to the preceding plea by pointing out that the in- 
dwelling Spirit is a gift direct from God Himself. Such a Spirit 
cannot dwell in a polluted sanctuary. Zp. of Barnadas iv. 11, 
vi. 15. 


For 7d oGua, A?L 17, Copt. Arm. have 74 owpara, and Vulg. has 
membra. 


kal oUk é€orée éautay. ‘I spoke of your body ; but in truth the 
body is not your own to do as you please with it, any more than 
the Spirit is your own. You have no right of property in either 
case. Indeed, your whole personality is not your own property, 
for God bought you with the life-blood of His Son.’ Acts xx. 28; 
Rom. xiv. 8. Epictetus again has a remarkable parallel; ‘If 
you were a statue of Phidias, you would think both of yourself 
and of the artist, and you would try to do nothing unworthy of 
him who made you, or of yourself. But now, because Zeus has 
made you, for this reason you do not care how you shall appear. 
And yet, is the artist in the one case like the artist in the other? 
or the work in the one case like the other?” See Long’s 
translation and notes, i. pp. 156, 157, 288. 


20. jyopdobyte yap tynqs. This ‘buying with a price,’ which 
causes a change of ownership, is a different metaphor from 
‘paying a ransom’ (Avrpov, dvtiAutpov: Avtpwors, aroAvTpwors), 
which causes freedom. There is no need to state the price; 
ovK apyupiw 7 xpvoiw, GAAG TYysiw aipare (1 Pet. i. 19, where see 
Hort). The Vulgate has fvetio only in vii. 23, but here has 
pretio magno, and the epithet weakens the effect. And there is 
no person from whom we are ‘bought’ (Abbott, Zhe Son of 
Man, p. 702). 

Sofdcare 5) T. O-. ev T. odpart Gp. As in v. 18, we have a 
sharp practical injunction which carries us a great deal further, 
and this same injunction is given in still more comprehensive 
terms to close the question about partaking of idol-meats (x. 31). 
Habitually to keep the body free from unchastity is imperative ; 
but we must do more than that. Seeing that we belong, not to 
ourselves, but to God, we must use the body, in which He has 
placed His Spirit, to His glory. This verse goes far beyond the 
negative injunction in v. 18, and hence the 8% enforcing the 
imperative, as in Acts xiii. 2; Luke ii. 15; Judith xiii. 11, 
*Avoigare, dvoigare 8y tHv miAnv: Hom. Od. xx. 18, TérAabe 8%, 
kpadin. The ‘Therefore’ of AV. and RV. is not quite right ; 
‘therefore’ would be otv, as in x. 31: ‘Be sure to glorify,’ ‘Z 
urge you to glorify’ is the force of the particle used here. 


9 


130 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VII. 1-40 


N*, deCopt. omit 47. Vulg., Tert. Cypr. Lucif. Ambrst. have 
clorificate (or clartficate) et portate (or tollite) deum (or dominum) in corpore 
vestro. Lightfoot suggests that fortate (or to//fte) may have arisen from a 
reading dpaye (Matt. vii. 20, xvii. 26 ; Acts xvii. 27?) which was confused 
with dpare. Marcion read dofdcare dpare tov Gedy, which may be mere 
dittography, or from dpa 6é=dpa 57 (Nestle, p. 307). Methodius read Gpd. 
ye dotdoare, omitting 67. Chrys. seems to have read dofdcare 5h dpa rov 
Océv. 

The addition kal év 7G mvetpare budy drwd éeorw Tod Beod (C* D? D* 
K LP, Syrr. AV.) is rejected by all editors. The words are wanting in 
all the best witnesses and are not required for the argument. The Apostle 
is concerned with the sanctity of the body: the spirit is beside the mark. 
Lightfoot thinks that this may possibly be a liturgical insertion, like that 
of the doxology to the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. vi. 13) and the baptismal 
formula (Acts viii. 37). But the words do not occur in any liturgy that is 
known to us, and the addition may be due to a wish to make the conclusion 
less abrupt and more complete. 


VII. 1-40. MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS. 


We here begin the second main division of the Epistle, if the 
Introduction (i. 1-9) is not counted. The Apostle, in a pre- 
amble (1-7), points out that marriage is a contract, and the 
normal relations must be maintained, unless both parties agree 
to suspend them. Ideally, celibacy may be better, but that is not 
for every one. Then (8-40) he gives advice to different classes. 
Superius (v., vi.) locutus fuerat de illicitis ; nunc vero (vii.) loguitur 
de licitis (Atto). 


VII. 1-7. Celibacy is Good, but Marriage is Natural. 


As you ask me, I prefer my own unmarried condition ; 
but for most of you tt ts safer to marry,and let husband and 
wife observe conjugal duty to one another. 


‘But now, as to the questions raised in your letter to me. 
Continence, as you suggest, is doubtless an excellent thing. 
* But this ideal state is not for every one, and, as temptation is 
inevitable, and abounds at Corinth, the right remedy is that 
each man should have a wife of his own, and each woman a 
husband of her own. %And the marriage should be complete, 
each side always rendering to the other what is due. 4 A married 
woman cannot do as she likes respecting her own person; it is 
her husband’s. And in the same manner his rights are limited 
by hers. Abandon the attempt to combine celibacy with 


VII. 1-40} MARRIAGE AND-ITS PROBLEMS 131 


matrimony. When both agree to it, continence for a limited 
time may be a good thing, if you have the intention of devoting 
yourselves the better to prayer, and then coming together again. 
If the time is not limited, you will be giving Satan a permanent 
opportunity of using your incontinence to your ruin. ® But I 
give this advice rather by way of permission and indulgence 
than of injunction and command. ‘Still, my own personal 
preference would be that all men should remain unmarried, as I 
do myself. But people differ, and God’s gifts differ, and each 
must act as God’s gift directs him. 

It is clear from the words with which this section opens that 
the discussion of the questions which were raised in the letter 
sent by the Corinthians begins here. In the remaining chapters 
(vii.—xvi.) we cannot always be sure whether he is referring to 
their letter or writing independently of it: but in the first six 
chapters there are no answers to questions asked by them. 
With regard to the questions discussed here, it is likely enough 
that every one of them had been asked in the letter. The 
Apostle does not write a tract on marriage; it would, no doubt, 
have been different if he had done so. He takes, without much 
logical arrangement, and perhaps just in the order in which they 
had been put to him, certain points which, as we can see, might 
easily have caused practical difficulty in such a Church as that 
of Corinth.* In so licentious a city some may easily have 
urged that the only safe thing to do was to abstain from the 
company of women altogether, yuvatxds py drreoOat, like those 
condemned in 1 Tim. iv. 3. Or they may have maintained that 
at any rate second marriages were wrong, and that separation 
from a heathen partner was necessary. Our Lord’s words 
(Matt. xix. 11, 12), if they were known to the Corinthians, might 
. easily give rise to the belief that marriage was to be discouraged. 
Quite certainly, some forms of heathen philosophy taught this, 
and asceticism was in the air before the Gospel was preached. 
In any case, it is unlikely that disparagement of marriage was a 
special tenet of any one of the four favties at Corinth. No one 
has conjectured this of the Apollos party: but for different 
and very unconvincing reasons different commentators have 
attributed this tenet to one or other of the three parties. Still, 


* On Nietzsche’s attack on St Paul, as a man of vicious life, see Weinel. 
St Paul, pp. 85-93. 


132 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII 1,2 


some persons at Corinth ad raised the question, “Is marriage 
to be allowed?” They had zoft raised the question, “Is 
marriage to be obligatory?” See Journ. of Th. St., July 1901, 
PP- 527-538. 

1, Mepi dé dv eypdpare. An elliptical expression (such as is 
common enough) for zept rovrwy, d, or repli tovtwv, wept dv: 
cf. Luke ix. 36; John vii. 31. Bachmann quotes from papyri, 
mept Gv eypaias, peAjoe por. Note that there is no poe after 
éypawas, and there is probably no wo here: SBC 17, Am. RV. 
omit. The dé is perhaps merely transitional; but it may 
intimate that the subject now to be discussed is in opposition 
to the one which has just been dismissed. He is passing from 
what is always wrong to what is generally lawful. It is putting 
too much meaning into the plural verb to say that we may infer 
from it that the letter was written in the name of the whole 
Church. It is probable that it was so written; but even if it 
came from only a few of the members, the Apostle would have 
to use the plural. There is nothing to show that the words 
which follow are a quotation from the letter, but they express 
what seems to have been the tone of it. Having in the two 
previous chapters warned the Corinthians against the danger of 
Gentile licentiousness, he here makes a stand against a spirit of 
Gentile asceticism. 


kahdv dvOpdmw yuvatkds ph Grrecbar. ‘For a man,’ he does 
not say ‘for a husband’ (dvdpi). A single life is not wrong; on 
the contrary, it is laudable, xaAdv. This he repeats vv. 8 and 
26; cf. v. 6, ix. 15; Gal. iv. 18. He is not dissuading from 
marriage or full married life ; he is contending that celibacy may 
be good.* For those who can bear it, it may be a bracing 
discipline (ix. 24, 27): but not all can bear it. For drreo@at see 
Gen. xx. 6; Prov. vi. 29; and cf. virgo intacta. 


2. 8148€ tds mopvetas. The plural (Matt. xv. 19 ; Mark vii. 21) 
refers to the notoriously frequent cases at Corinth. Atto 
paraphrases ‘ Vegue enim tta volo prohibere licita, ut per tllicita 
errent, and adds, Nota guia non dicitur, propter propaginem 
jfiliorum, sed propter fornicationem. To Christians who believed 
that the end of the world was very near, the necessity of pre- 


* Orthodox Jews were opposed to celibacy, regarding marriage as a duty ; 
but there were some who agreed with St Paul. ‘‘ Why should I marry?” 
asked Rabbi ben Azai: ‘‘I am in love with the law. Let others see to the 
prolongation of the human race” (Renan, p. 397). The second half of 
Ps, cxx. 7 gives the common view. 


VII. 2,3] §=MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 133 


serving the human race from extinction would not have seemed 
a very strong argument. 

This passage is sometimes criticized as a very low view of 
marriage. But the Apostle is not discussing the characteristics 
of the ideal married life ; he is answering questions put to him 
‘by Christians who had to live in such a city as Corinth. Ina 
society so full of temptations, he advises marriage, not as the 
lesser of two evils, but as a necessary safeguard against evil. So 
far from marriage being wrong, as some Corinthians were 
thinking, it was for very many peoplea duty. The man who wrote 
Eph. v. 22, 23, 32, 33 had no low view of marriage. 

€xactos ... ékdoty. ‘This forbids polygamy, which was 
advocated by some Jewish teachers. 

Thy €auTod yuvaika . . . Tov tSov dvdpa. The Apostle seems 
always to use éavtod, cavrav, or aitod (Eph. v. 28, 31, 33) of a 
man’s relation to his wife, but tdcos (xiv. 35; Eph. v. 22; Tit. 
ii. 5) of a woman’s to her husband (1 Thess. iv. 4 is doubtful). 
Does this show that he regarded the husband as the owner and 
the wife as being owned? Rom. xiv. 4 somewhat encourages 
this. But the difference between éavrod and dios was becoming 
blurred: see J. H. Moulton, Gv. 1. pp. 87 f.; Deissmann, Bible 
Studies, pp. 122f. A few texts omit kai éxdory x.7.A. 

exétw. ‘Have,’ not ‘keep,’ as is clear from the use of 
dvOpo7rw and not dvépé in v. 1, where we should have had rijs 
yevaikés and not yvvackds, if married people were under con- 
sideration. In vv. 12, 13, €xee cannot mean ‘keeps,’ and éxyérw 
does not mean that married people are to continue to live 
together, but that unmarried people are to marry. The im- 
perative is hortatory, not merely permissive. 


3. tH yuvarxt 6 dvyp. Here he is speaking of married 
persons, and therefore yvvaixc has the article, and we have dijp 
and not av@pwrros. 

thy épevkyv. Not found in LXX, but frequent in papyri in 
the common sense of debt (Matt. xviii. 32; Rom. xiii. 7). See 
Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 221. 

dmoSi8étw. Present imperative: the mutual recognition of 
conjugal rights is the normal condition, and it is not the con- 
ferring of a favour (é:dd7w), but the payment of a debt (dzro8:dd7w). 
Cf. the change from dotva: (the questioners’ view) to daéddore 
(Christ’s correction) in Matt. xxii. 17, 21. 


tiv d¢edryv (SNABCDEFGPQ 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm, Aeth.) is to 
be preferred to rijv dpe:Anuévny ebvorav (KL, Syrr.), or 7. dp. Tyshv (Chrys. ), 
or T. 6p. Tiwhy kal ebvolay (40), which may have been euphemisms adopted 
- in public reading. Or they may be ascetic periphrases to obscure the plain 
meaning of 7. dpeAjv. Cf. Rom. xiii. 7. 
A, Copt. Arm. omit dé before kal. 


134 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VII. 4,5 


4. } yun. It is probably not in order to mark the equality 
of the sexes that the order is changed: the wife is here men- 
tioned first because she has just been mentioned in the previous 
verse. Equality between the sexes is indicated by using the 
same expression respecting both, thus correcting Jewish and 
Gentile ideas about women. 

ToO idiov awpatos odx efoucrdter. The words involve, as 
Bengel points out, e/egans paradoxon, How can it be one’s 
own if one cannot do as one likes with it? See on vi. 12. 
But in wedlock separate ownership of the person ceases. Neither 
party can say to the other, ‘Is it not lawful for me (€£eoriv or) 
to do what I will with mine own?’ (Matt. xx. 15). By pointing 
out that the aim is to be, not self-gratification, but the fulfilment 
of a duty which each owes to the other, St Paul partly anti- 
cipates the criticism mentioned above. He raises the matter 
from the physical level to the moral. 


5. py dtrootepetre. After what has been stated it is evident 
that refusal amounts to fraud, a withholding what is owed. ‘The 
pres. imperat. may mean that some of the Corinthians, in mis- 
taken zeal, had been doing this; ‘cease to defraud.’ Three 
conditions are required for lawful abstention: it must be by 
mutual consent, for a good object, and temporary. It is 
analogous to fasting. Even so, the advice is given very tentat- 
ively, et pyte av. ‘l'emporary abstention for a spiritual purpose 
is advised in O.T.; Eccles. i11. 5 ; Joel 11. 16; Zech. xii. 12-14 : * 
but it is an exception for certain circumstances, not a rule for 
all circumstances: ¢//ud sane sciendum quia mundae et sanctae 
sunt nuptiae, gquoniam Dei jussu celebrantur (Atto). For ert 7o — 
auto cf. xi. 20, xiv. 23; uke xvi. 35; Acts 1. 15, i. 1, 44, 490 
iv. 26; for dxpaoia, Matt. xxili. 25. Here dra riyv axp. is probably 
to be taken as co-ordinate with the clause tva pi wep., and as 
giving a second aspect of the reason for limiting the time of — 
abstention. Aristotle made dxpacia a frequent term in Greek 
philosophy; in the Bible it is very rare. Calvin uses this — 
verse as an argument against monasticism: /emere faciunt 
gui in perpetuum renuntiant. ‘To vow perpetual—celibacy, 
without certainty of having received the necessary ydpurpa,_i 
to court disaster. Forcing it on the clergy prevents good 
men from taking Orders and causes weak men to break their — 


vow. ; 
) 


\ 


+ 
4 


* cxoddfew is very rare in LXX (Ps. xlv. 10), and is nowhere used in 
this sense ; but in class. Grk. it is frequent in the sense of being ‘ disengaged 
for,’ or ‘devoted to,’ a pursuit or a person. We find a similar idea Exod. 
xix. 15; I Sam. xxi. 5; 2 Sam. xi. 4. Cf. Tibullus 1. iii..25. See also 
1 Pet. ili. 7, iv. 7. Xudwvos occurs nowhere else in N.T. 


VII. 5, 6] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 135 


The dy after && yjre (or ef xu) 7c) is omitted in B and bracketed by WH. 
Before 77 mpocevxy, KL, Syrr. Goth. Thdrt. insert rj vyoreta Kal: a 
manifest interpolation similar to kal yyorela in Mark ix. 29, and vyoretwv 
kalin Acts x. 30. In all three places ascetic ideas seem to have influenced 
copyists, but the evidence differs in the three cases. In Mark ix. 29 the 
words in question are omitted in NB K, a very strong combination. In 
Acts x. 30 the words are wanting in N A BC, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth., a 
much stronger combination. Here the evidence against 77 v. Kat is over- 
whelming ; X A BC* D* EF G17, Latt. Copt. Aeth. The case of Matt. 
xvii. 21 is not parallel to these three. The whole verse is an interpolation 
from Mark ix. 29 after that passage had already been corrupted by the 
addition of kal vnoreig. The practice of fasting has sufficient sanction in 
the N.T. (Matt. iv. 2, vi. 16-18, ix. 15 ; Mark ii. 20; Luke v. 35; Acts 
xill. 2, 3, xiv. 23), without introducing it into places where it was not 
mentioned by the original writers, who, moreover, would not have placed 
it on the same level with prayer. Fasting is an occasional discipline, 
prayer an abiding necessity, in the spiritual life. Stanley attributes the 
readings sxodafnre (KL) for sxo\donre (NS ABCD, etc.), and cuvépyeabe 
or ouvépxnaGe (KLP) for #re (SW A BCD, etc.) to ascetic influence : syo\d- 
‘mre would refer to general habit, ordinary and not extraordinary prayer, 
and re refers to what is usual, not exceptional. In commenting on these 
words, Origen makes a remark which is of no small liturgical interest. He 
quotes the case of Ahimelech, who was willing to let David have some of 
the shew-bread, ef mepudayueva Ta maiddpid esr dard yuvatkos (LXX of 
1 Sam. xxi. 4). He assumes ovx olov 6é dad addXorplas yuvarxds GAN dard 
yauerjs, and continues, elra iva pév dprous mpobécews AdBy Tis, KaBapos elvat 
dpeirer ard yuvarkds* iva dé Tods pelfovas THs mpobécews AGB dprous, EP’ 
Ov éwmik€kXnTa TO dvoua TOU Geo’ kal Tov Xpiorod cal rob 
‘Aylov Ilvetuaros, ob mo\\@ mréov ddeiher Tis Elva Kabapdrepos, wa 
GAnOGs els cwrnplay AdBy Tovs Aprouvs kal uh els xKplua. From this it is 
evident that ‘‘invocation of the name of God and of Christ and of the Holy 
Spirit” over the elements was regarded by Origen as the essential part 
of their consecration. 

This passage is one of the few in N.T. which touch on the private 
devotions of Christians in the Apostolic age. See Bigg on 1 Pet. iii. 7, 
iv. 7. 


6. rodto 8€ A€yw. It is not clear how much the rodro covers ; 
probably the whole of vv. 1-5. The least probable suggestion 
is that it refers solely to the resumption of married life, xat 
maAw K.7.A, 

guvyvépyv. ‘Concession,’ or ‘indulgence,’ or ‘allowance.’ * 
The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. and is very rare in 
EXxxX. 

od kat émrayyv. ‘Not by way of command’ (2 Cor. 
Vili. 8). 

* «By permission’ (AV.) is ambiguous ; it might mean, ‘I am permitted 
by God to say as much as this.’ It was translated venza in some Old Latin 
texts, and this rendering, understood (by Augustine) as meaning ‘ pardon,’ 
led to far-reaching error. It means ‘ By way of concession’: he is telling 
people that they may marry, not that they must do so: ex concesstone non ex 
imperio (Beza). There is similar uncertainty as to the scope of the roiro in 
xi. 17, and the airy in ix. 3. In 1 Tim. i. 1, kar’ értrayjy is used in a 
different sense: ‘in obedience to the command.’ 


136 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 7 


7. 0€dw 8€ wdvtas. This is in harmony with the xadov avOparw 
from which he started. Surroundings so licentious as the 
Apostle had at Ephesus and Corinth might well—inspire—him 
with a longing for universal celibacy. For a similar wish about 
his own condition being that of others see Acts xxvi. 29 (67roi0s 
Kai €yo eiyt): in both places we have the comparative use of 
kai, as again in v. 8 and x. 6. 

&\\d. He admits that his own _personal—feeling is not 
decisive ; indeed, is not in accordance with conditions of society 
which have their source in God. Here xdpiopa (see on i. 7) is 
used in the sense of a special gift of God, a special grace to an 
individual. Origen points out that if celibacy is a ydpiopa, so 
also is marriage, and those who forbid marriage forbid what has 
been given by God. 

6 pév odtws. ‘One in this direction and one in that.’ The 
recognition that opposite courses may each of them be right 
for different individuals is more fully drawn out Rom. xiv. 1-12: 
and see Rom. xii. 6; 1 Pet. iv. 10. We have ovrws . .. ovrTws, 
Judg. xviii. 4; 2 Sam. xi. 25, xvii. 15: it is not classical. 

We perhaps understand the Apostle’s wish better if we assume 
that it refers, not so much to the fact of remaining unmarried, 
as to the possession of the gift of continence, without which 
it was disastrous to remain unmarried. God had given him 
this gift, and he wishes that all men had it: but it does not 
follow that every man who has this gift is bound to a life of 
celibacy. In the Apostle’s day (v. 26) the xdpuopna of continency 
was specially valuable. Cf. Matt. xix. 11. 


We must read 6é\w 6é (N* AC D* F G17, Am. Copt., Orig.) rather 
than @é\w ydp (BD? K L P, Syrr. Arm. Aeth.). The 6é marks a slight 
opposition to the concession just mentioned. That concession is not his 
own ideal; ‘I rather wish that all men were as I myself also am.’ Failure 
to see this has caused the substitution of yap for 6é. 

K L, Arm. have ydpisua before exer: exer xdpurua is doubtless right : 
so also 6 pév ,. . 0 d€ (N* ABCD F P) rather than és uwév .. . ds 6€ | 
(&* K L). 


VII. 8-40. Advice to Different Classes. 


To the unmarried or widowed, to the married where 
both parties are Christians, to the married where one of the 
two is a heathen, I would advise, as a rule, that you should 
remain as you are, or as you were when you became Chris- 
tians. The same principle would apply to circumcision, and 


also to slavery; but an opportunity for emancipation may 
be accepted. 


VII. 8-40] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBILEMS 137 


8To the unmarried and to widows I affirm it to be an 
excellent thing for them, if they should continue to remain 
single, as I also remain. If, however, they have not the 
special gift of self-control, let them marry; for it is better to 
marry than to be on fire. 1 But to those who have married as 
Christians I give a charge—and it is really not my charge, but 
Christ’s—that a wife is not to seek divorce from her husband. 
1 But if unhappily she does do this, she must remain single, or 
else be reconciled to her husband. In like manner a man is not 
to divorce his wife. 

! To those whose cases are not covered by these directions 
I have this to say; and I say it as my own advice, not as 
Christ’s command: if any member of the Church has a wife 
who is not a believer, and she consents to live with him, let 
him not divorce her ; !¥ and if a wife has a husband who is not 
a believer, and he consents to live with her, let her not divorce 
her husband. 1! And for this reason: the consecration of the 
believing partner is not cancelled by union with an unbeliever. 
On the contrary, the unbelieving partner is sanctified through 
union with a believer. If this were not so, the children would 
be left in heathen uncleanness ; whereas in fact, as the offspring 
of a Christian parent, they are holy. 1° But if, on the other 
hand, the unbelieving partner insists on a separation, separation 
let there be. No servile bondage to a heathen yoke deprives 
a Christian man or woman of freedom in such cases. There 
need be no scruples, no prolonged conflict with the unbeliever 
who demands separation: it is in peace of mind that we have 
been placed by our calling as Christians. 1° For how can you 
tell, O wife, whether, by keeping your heathen husband against 
his wish, you will be able to convert him? Or how can you 
tell, O husband, whether you will be able to convert your 
reluctant wife ? 

17 Still, the general principle is this: In each case let people 
be content with the lot which God assigned them, and with 
the condition in which God’s call has come to them, and let 
them continue in that course so far as may be. This is the 
rule that I am laying down in all the Churches. 

18 This principle holds good with regard to circumcision. 
Were you already circumcised at the time of your call? Do 
not attempt to efface the circumcision. Or have you been 


138 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIL 8 


called in uncircumcision? Do not seek to be circumcised. 
19 Neither the one nor the other is of any consequence. What 
really matters is keeping God’s commandments, and that is 
vital. 2° Kach one of you, I say, should be content to remain 
in the condition in which God called him. #! And this applies 
to slavery also. Were you a slave when you were called? Do 
not be distressed at it; yet, if you can become free, make use 
of the opportunity. 

227 say that you need not be distressed at being a slave 
when you became a Christian: every such slave is the Lord’s 
freed man. And the converse is true: he who was free when 
he was called is Christ’s slave. *% You were bought with the 
price of His blood, and to Him, whether you are bond or free, 
you belong. Cease to regard yourselves as belonging to men 
in the sense in which you belong to Him, ™TI repeat, Brothers, 
the general rule. In that state in which each man was called, 
let him be content to remain, remembering God’s presence and 
His protecting care. 


8. tois dydpots kal tats yxypats. This includes bachelors, 
widowers, and widows, but not unmarried girls, whose case is 
discussed later (25-38), and who would not have much voice 
in deciding the point in question. The conjecture of rots yypors 
for tats xypais is worth considering. A word not found else- 
where in N.T. might be changed to one that is common. ‘Even 
as I’ is more in place, if men only are addressed. “Ayapos 
occurs vv. 11, 32, 34, and nowhere else in N.T. 

kahév. As in v. 1, this introduces the Apostle’s own ideal, 
as illustrated by his own life. As rots dydpous covers both single 
men and widowers, this passage does not tell us whether St Paul 
had ever been married. The very early interpretation of yvjote 
avvCuye (Phil. iv. 3) as meaning the Apostle’s wife (Clem. Alex. 
‘Strom. Ill. Vi. p. 535, ed. Potter) may safely be set aside, for 
this passage shows that, if he ever had been married, his wife 
died before he wrote to the Philippians. And if he had been 
married then, would he not have written yvyoia in addressing 
his wife. The argument that, as a member of the Sanhedrin 
(Acts xxvi, 10), he must have been a married man and a father, 
is not strong. This rule (Sanh. fo. 36b), as a security for 
clemency, may be of later date, and xaryjveyxa Whpov may be a 
figurative expression for approving of the sentence. The proba- 
bility is that St Paul was never married (Tertull. De Monogam. 
8; Ad Uxor. ii. 1). In all his writings, as also in Acts, there 


VII. 8-10] | MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 139 


is no trace of wife or child.* The kad in ds kayo, as in ds Kal 
enavtov (v. 7), is the comparative use of xai. He compares his 
own case with that of those whom he desires to keep unmarried, 
and emphasizes it. The aorist (we‘vwow) suggests a life-long and 
final decision. 


9. ci S€ odk éykpatevovrar. ‘But if they have not power over 
themselves’ (midd.). It is doubtful whether the negative coalesces 
with the verb so as to express only one idea. In N.T. we more 
often have ei od for ‘if not’ than ei yy, which means ‘unless.’ 
“Where a fact has sharply to be brought out and sharply to be 
negatived, there ef ov seems to be not only permissible, but 
logically correct” (Ellicott). See Burton, foods and Tenses, 
§§ 242, 261, 469; and compare Rom. viii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 10, 
74, CLC. 

What is meant by this failure to have power over themselves 
is partly explained by zvpoto6a: (present tense in both verbs). 
A prolonged and painful struggle seems to be intended, a con- 
dition quite fatal to spiritual peace and growth: cf. ix. 25 ; Gen. 
xlili. 30; 1 Sam. xill. 12. Elsewhere we have zvpods6ar of burn- 
ing with grief and indignation (2 Cor. xi. 29).¢ The advice 
given here is similar to that given in v. 5, dua tHv axpaciav ipor, 
and to the younger widows in 1 Tim. v. 11-15. 


Kpetrrov (SW BD E) is here the better reading, xpetsoov in xi. 17, where 
see note. It is not easy to decide between yayetv (N* A C* 17) and 
yapjoa (8° BC* DEF, etc.). Editors are divided. Perhaps yaufoat was 
changed to yapety to conform to rupoic@a. But the change of tense is 
intelligible ; ‘ better to marry once for all than to go on being on fire.’ In 
this Epistle, as elsewhere in N.T., the later form of the aor. (éydunoa) is 
more common (vv. 33, 34) than the earlier (@ynua); in v. 28 both forms 
occur. 


10. trois S€ yeyapnkdow tapayyedkw. He passes from those 
to whom it is still open to marry or not to marry. ‘ But to those 
who have already married (since they became Christians) I give 
command.’ To render, ‘I pass ov the order’ from Christ to you, 
is giving too much force to the preposition. Christ does not 
‘pass on’ the order. The meaning is, ‘I give the order; no, 


* See Max Krenkel, Beitrige zur Aufhellung der Geschichte und der 
Briefe des Apostels Paulus, pp. 26-46, a careful examination of the question, 
War Paulus jemals verheiratet? Baring Gould thinks that St Paul may have 
married Lydia (Acts xvi. 14, 40), and that it was she who supplied him with 
money (Acts xxiv. 26, xxviii. 30). This is not probable. 

+ Eph. vi. 16, it is used of the flaming darts of the evil one; Rev. i. 15, 
iii. 18, of what has been refined by fire. It is frequent in the latter sense in 
LXX, and in 2 Macc., with rots @uyots added, of anger. Some understand 
it here as meaning ‘unsatisfied affection’ rather than dxpacta. In ix. 25 we 
have éyxparever@ac again, but nowhere else in N.T. See Hos. vii. 4 and 
Cheyne’s note. 


140 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VII. 10,11 


not I, Christ gives it.’ In class. Grk. rapayyéAAw is used of the 
military word of command: see xi. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 11; often 
in 2 Thess., 1 Tim., Luke, and Acts. When the Apostle gives 
directions on his own authority (v. 12), he says ‘speak,’ not 
‘command.’ 

obx éyd, dNAd 6 Kuptos. Christ Himself had decided against 
divorce (Mark x. 9; Luke xvi. 18), and His Apostle repeats His 
teaching: see also Mal. ii. 16. St Paul is distinguishing between 
his own inspired utterances (v. 40) and the express commands 
of Christ, not between his own private views and his inspired 
utterances. And there is no need to assume (as perhaps in 
1 Thess. iv. 15) that he had received a direct revelation on the 
subject. Christ’s decision was well known. See Dobschiitz, 
Probleme des Ap. Zeitalters, Leipzig, 1904, p. 109; Fletcher, 
The Conversion of St Paul, Bell, 1910, p. 57. 

yuvaika did dv8pds. The fact that he begins with the unusual 
case of a wife divorcing her husband indicates that such a thing 
had actually occurred or was mentioned in their letter as likely 
to occur. Women may have raised the question. 


xwpibiva (S BCKLP) is certainly to be preferred to xwplterOa 
(A DEFG): patristic evidence is divided. 


1l. dav 8€ kal xwpto6A. ‘But if (in spite of Christ’s com- 
mand) she even goes so far as to separate herself,’ she is not to 
marry any other man. The divorce is her act, not her husband’s. 
“Christianity had powerfully stirred the feminine mind at Corinth 
(xi. 5, xiv. 34). In some cases ascetic aversion caused the wish 
to separate” (Findlay). With the xaé compare ei dé xai in iv. 7. 
Christ had forbidden marriage with a divorced wife (Luke xvi. 
18), and His Apostle here takes the same ground. If the wife 
who has separated from her husband finds that, after all, she 
cannot live a single life, the only course open to her is to be 
reconciled to the husband whom she has injured. For the con- 
struction (karadA. ¢. dat.) see Rom. v. 10. Like ei 8€ 6 dros 
(v. 15) and aAN ei xai dvvaca (v. 21), this éay d€ Kai x.7.A. is a 
parenthesis to provide for an exceptional case. He then con- 
tinues the Lord’s command, that ‘a husband is not to put away 
(agrévat = karadveww) his wife.’* St Paul, like our Lord, forbids 
divorce absolutely : zopvefa in the wife is not mentioned here as 
creating an exception; and it is possible that this exception 
_ "The change from ywpicOjvar of the wife to ddlevar of the husband is 
intelligible. The home is his: she can leave it, but he sends her away from 
it. In LXX, xwpicAjvac is frequent of separation in place. In papyri it is 
used of divorce ; €dv ¢ xwplfwrra dw’ dddjprwY: so also xwpicuds. Polybius 
(XXXII. xii. 6) has keywpicuévy dd rob dvdpés. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, 


Pp. 247. Inv. 13, dguévar is used of the wife, perhaps in order to make an 
exact parallel with v, 2, 


VII, 11-14] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 14! 


(Matt. v. 32, xix. 9; see Allen and Plummer ad /oc.) was unknown 
to the Apostle, because it had not been made by Christ. 


12. tots 8€ Aotwots. Having spoken of those converts who 
were still unmarried, and of those who had married since their 
conversion, he now treats of those who belonged to neither class. 
There were some who had married before their conversion and 
now had a heathen wife or a heathen husband. Were they to 
continue to live with their heathen partners? Yes, if the heathen 
partner consents to the arrangement. St Paul elsewhere uses oi 
Aourot of a remainder which is wholly or largely heathen (Eph. 
its, 25) 1, Chess. 1V..13,.v- 6). 

Aéyw eyd, obx 6 KUpios. This is the right order (x A BC P 
17), not €ya Aéyw (D E FG). He means that he is not now 
repeating the teaching of Christ, who is not likely to have said 
anything on the subject. He does not mean that he is speaking 
now, not with Apostolic authority, but as a private individual. 
All his directions are given with the inspiration and power of an 
Apostle, and he speaks with confidence and sureness. He applies 
Christ’s ruling as far as it will reach in the case of a mixed union. 
The Christian party must certainly not dissolve the marriage, if 
the heathen party does not desire to do so. 

yuvaika €xer dmorov. Here €xec must mean ‘has,’ not ‘keeps,’ 
‘retains,’ and this shows the meaning of €xyérw in v. 2. It is the 
case of a Christian with a heathen wife whom he married when 
he himself was an unbeliever. 

guvevdoxet. ‘Agrees in being content.’ The compound verb 
(Rom. i. 32) indicates mutual consent, implying that more than 
one person is satisfied (Acts xxii. 20); often with a dative of the 
thing in which agreement is found (Luke xi. 48; Acts viii. 1 ; 
2 Mac. xi. 24). 

py agprérw attny. AV. has ‘let him not put her away’ here, 
and ‘let her not leave him’ in v. 13: RV. has ‘leave’ in both 
places. Perhaps ‘put away’ would be better in both, as St Paul 
is speaking of divorce. As in v. 11, dptévat=adzodveuw, which in 
class. Grk. would be dzoréyrew. Vulg. has dimittat throughout. 


18. kat odtos. The pronoun shows that atry, and not airy, 
is the right accentuation in v. 12. Here some inferior texts read 
airds instead of otros, and airor instead of rov dvdpa. The latter 
term has point, because it was a strong measure for a wife to try 
to divorce her husband. But the Apostle puts both sexes on 
a level by using aq¢vérw, which is more commonly used of the 


husband, of both. 


14. jjyiacrat. This refers to the baptismal consecration (i. 2, 
vi. 11), in which the unbelieving husband shares through union 


142 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | VII. 14 


with a Christian wife. The purity of the believing partner over- 
powers (vxa) the impurity of the unbelieving one (Chrys.), so 
that the union is pure and lawful; there is no profanation of 
matrimony. The principle eis oapxa ptav holds good in mixed 
marriages (vi. 16), but not to the detriment of the believing 
partner; as an unlawful union desecrates, so a lawful union con- 
secrates: pluris enim est pietas unius ad conjugtum sanctificandum, 
quam alterius ad tnquinandum (Calv.). But he goes beyond 
what is written when he adds, ¢xterea nthil prodest haec sancti- 
ficatio conjugt infideli.* Note the ev in both cases ; the Christian 
partner is the sphere in which the sanctification takes place, and 
the heathen partner may be influenced by that sphere. There 
is no such intolerable difference of sphere as to necessitate dis- 
solution of the marriage. 
émet dpa. ‘Since it would then follow,’ ze. if it was the im- 
purity of the heathen partner which prevailed on the analogy of 
Hag. il. 11-13; there it is uncleanness that is communicated, 
while consecration is not communicated. The Apostle argues 
back from the children to the parents. The child of a parent 
who is aytos must ipso facto be dys: that he assumes as axio- 
matic. He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent 
would be baptized ; that would spoil rather than help his argu- 
ment, for it would imply that the child was not ayos till it was 
baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant 
baptism. He argues from the fact that the Corinthians must 
admit that a Christian’s child is ‘holy.’ Consequently, it was 
born in wedlock that is ‘holy.’ Consequently, such wedlock 
need not be dissolved. But he is not approving such wedlock. 
Marriages with heathen are wrong {2 Cor. vi. 14). But, where 
they have come into existence through the conversion of one 
partner in a heathen marriage, the Christian partner is not to 
seek divorce. 
DEF, Latt. add 77 morg after yuval, 8 ABCK LP omit. ddag@ 
(8* ABC D* EF GP 17, Copt. RV.) is to be preferred to dvdpi (8° D3 
KL, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. AV.), an unintelligent gloss by one who did 
not see the point of aéeAp@ and wanted to make the usual balance to the 
preceding yuvaki. Vuly., Iren. Tert. add 7@ mior@ to dvdpl, making it 
equivalent to ddekpg@. For viv 6€é, DE F G have vuvl, which at the begin- 
ning of a clause is always in N.T. followed by 6é. 
With the argumentative use of ézrel, ‘since, if that were so,’ cf. xv. 29 


and see note on Rom. iii. 6. In v. 10, 11 we have a similar é7eé followed 
by viv, as here. See Burton, Moods and Tenses, §§ 229, 230. 








_ * As Evans says, ‘‘ He stands upon the sacred threshold of the Church: 
his surroundings are hallowed. United to a saintly consort, he is in daily 
contact with saintly conduct : holy association may become holy assimilation, 
and the sanctity which ever environs may at last penetrate. But the man’s 
conversion 1s not a condition necessary to the sanctity of the subsisting con- 
jugal union.” Origen compares such a union to a mixture of wine and water. 


VII. 15} MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 143 


15. et S€ 6 Gmortos xwpilerar. ‘But if it is the unbeliever 
that is for separating.’ The emphasis is on 6 dzurros, and the 
present tense indicates the heathen partner’s state of mind. 
What follows shows that 6 diros covers both sexes, and in such 
cases the Apostle has no injunction to give to the unbeliever, 
‘For what have I to do with judging them that are without? ? 
(v. 12); so the responsibility rests with them, and they may do 
as they please, xwpileoOw. If, therefore, the heathen partner 
seeks divorce, the Christian partner may consent. The Christian 
partner is under no slavish obligation to refuse to be set free. 
Just to this extent the law against divorce has its limits. 
Marriages between Jews ought not to be dissolved, and 
marriages between Christians ought not to be dissolved; but 
heathen marriages stand on a different basis. These ought to 
be respected as long as possible, even when one of the parties 
becomes a Christian. But if the one who remains a heathen 
demands divorce, the Christian is not bound to oppose divorce. 
In such matters the Christian ov dedovAwrat, has not lost all 
freedom of action ; independence still survives. 

We cannot safely argue with Luther that od dedovAwrax implies 
that the Christian partner, when divorced by the heathen partner, 
may marry again. And Luther would have it that this implies that 
the Christian partner, when divorced by “a false Christian,” may 
marry again. Who is to decide whether the Christian is “ false ” 
or not? And the principle, which is far older than Luther, that 
“reverence for the marriage-tie is not due to one who has no 
reverence for the Author of the marriage-tie” will carry one to 
disastrous conclusions. Basil (letter to Amphilochius, Caxonica 
Prima, Ep. clxxxviil. 9) does not write with precision. All that 
ov dedovAwrae clearly means is that he or she need not feel so 
bound by Christ’s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart 
when the heathen partner insists on separation. 

ev 8é cipyvy KexAynkev Spas. ‘It is in an atmosphere of peace 
that God has called you.’ ‘This is ambiguous: ‘To what is the 
‘peace’ opposed? If to dondage, which seems natural, then the 
meaning will be that to feel bound to remain with a heathen 
partner, who objects to your remaining, would violate the peace 
in which you were called to be a Christian. If ‘peace’ is op- 
posed to separation, then the meaning will be that you ought to 
do your utmost to avoid divorce. ‘The former is probably right : 
cf. Col. iii. 15. Heathen animus against Christianity would 
greatly increase the difficulty of insisting upon living with a 
heathen who was anxious for a divorce. In such a state of 
things Christian peace would be impossible. With ev ecipyvy 
compare év dyacpd, t Thess. iv. 7. The d€ supplies the fositive 
complement to the negative od dedovAwrat, 


144 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VII. 16,17 


Editors are much divided as to whether duds (N* AC K, Copt.) or 
huas (SS BD EF, Latt. Syrr. AV. RV.) is the better reading. 


16. ri yap olSas, yuvar. As in v. 15, the case of the heathen 
husband desiring to divorce his Christian wife is uppermost, 
although the other case is also considered. And this verse is 
as ambiguous as the concluding part of v.15. Either, ‘Do not 
contend against divorce on the ground that, if you remain, you 
may convert your heathen partner; for how do you know that 
you will do that?’ Or (going back to pa ddvérw in 13, 14, and 
treating 15 as a rare exception to the almost universal rule), 
‘Avoid divorce, for it is possible—you never know—that you 
will convert your heathen partner.’ This latter interpretation 
involves the rendering, ‘ How knowest thou whether thou wilt 
notsave?’ See the LXX of Esth. iv. 14; Joel ii. 14; Jon. iil. 9; 
1 Sam. xii. 22. On the ground that these four passages express 
a hope rather than a doubt, Lightfoot prefers the interpretation 
that the chance of saving the unbelieving partner is “‘ worth any 
temporal inconvenience.” So also Findlay. But the other 
interpretation is probably right. The sequence of thought is 
then quite clear. ‘If the unbeliever demands divorce, grant 
it: you are not bound to refuse. If you refuse, you will have 
no peace. The chance of converting your heathen spouse is too 
small a compensation for a strained and disturbed life, in which 
Christian serenity will be impossible.’ To call the latter 
“temporal inconvenience” is a serious understatement. See 
Stanley. For owfev see Rom. xi. 14; 1 Tim. iv. 16; and for 
the history of the idea, Hastings, DB. rv. pp. 360f.; DCG. 11. 
p. 556. ‘The ei yx (v. 17) is almost decisive for this view. 


17. ‘This verse may be taken either as a summing up of 
what has just been stated, or as a fresh starting-point for what 
is to follow (18-24). It states the general principle which de- 
termines these questions about marriage, and this is afterwards 
illustrated by the cases of circumcision and slavery. Conversion 
to Christianity must make a radical change in the moral and 
spiritual life, but it need not make any radical change in our 
external life, and it is best to abide in the condition in which 
the call came to us. Therefore the Christian partner must not 
do anything to bring about a dissolution of marriage, any more 
than the Christian slave must claim emancipation. But if the 
heathen party insists on dissolution, or grants emancipation, then 
the Christian may accept freedom from such galling ties.* 


* There is no good reason for suspecting with Baljon that vv. 17-22 are 
an interpolation, or with Clemen that they come from some other Pauline 


Epistle. Beza proposed to place them after v, 40. Equally needlessly, 
Holsten suspects that v. 14 is an interpolation. 


VII. 17] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 145 


Ei ph éxdotw ds pepéptxey 6 Kuptos, Ekactoy x.t.A. ‘Only as 
our Lord has appointed to each, as God has called each, so 
let him walk.’ In both clauses ‘each’ is emphatic; and while 
the assignment of circumstances to each individual is attributed 
to Christ, the call to become a believer comes from the Father, 
as in Rom. viii. 28. The et my (introducing an exception or 
correction) defines and limits the somewhat vague ‘is not under 
bondage in such cases.’ There remains some obligation, viz. 
not to seek a rupture. One is not in all cases free to depart, 
simply because one cannot be compelled to stay. But nothing 
is here said against the improvement of one’s circumstances after 
embracing Christianity. What is laid down is that, unless one’s 
external condition of life is a sinful one, no violent change in it 
should be made, simply because one has become a Christian. 
One should continue in the same course (zepurareirw), glorifying 
God by a good use of one’s opportunities ; status, in guo vocatio 
quemque offendit, instar vocationis est (Beng.). This general 
principle seems to the Apostle so important that he states that 
he has established it in all the Churches under his care, and then 
goes on to illustrate it by two frequent examples of its application. 
On zepivaretv and avaorpéepew of daily conduct, see Hort on 
t Pet. i. 15 and Lukyn Williams on Gal. i. 13. See on iii. 3. 

The verse reads better as a fresh starting-point (WH., Way, 
Weymouth, B. Weiss) than as a summary of what precedes 
(Alford, Ellicott), But even if the latter arrangement be 
adopted, there is no close connexion between vv. 16 and 17. 
Some join «i py with «i rHv yvvaixa odoes, ‘whether thou shalt 
save thy wife, whether not.’ But that would require % ov, as in 
Matt. xxii. 17. Others understand xwpierac after «i wy, ‘If he 
does not depart’; others again understand cwoes, ‘If thou 
shalt not save her.’ This makes very bad sense, and would 
almost certainly require «i 6€ py. Theodoret runs the two 
verses into one sentence, ‘How knowest thou . . . except in 
so far as our Lord has apportioned to each?’ This is very 
awkward, and gives no good sense. ‘Only’ or ‘Save only’ is 
the best translation of ei». It introduces a caution with regard 
to what precedes, and this forms a preface to what follows. St 
Paul is opposing the restless spirit and desire for further change 
which the Gospel had excited in some converts. 

kal obtws... Siatdcoopar. As in xi. 343; Tit. i. 5; Acts 
xxiv. 23, we have the middle ; in ix. 14, xvi. 1 he uses the active. 
This is evidently spoken with Apostolic authority, and it indi- 
cates that the restlessness and craving for change, against which 
he here contends, was common among Christians. He lets the 
Corinthians know that they receive no exceptional treatment, 
either in the way of regulations or privileges. This checks 


Io 


146 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VII. 17-19 


rebelliousness on the one hand and conceit on the other. 
Odiosum fuisset Corinthiis arctiore vinculo quam altos constringt 


(GalenoniCh tv. 17. 


Ought we to read pewépixev (N* B) or éuépicev (N>A CD, etc.)? Aor. 
might be changed to perf. to harmonize with xéxAnxev, and perf. (being less 
common) might be changed to aor. The perf. is preferable. Certainly 
6 Kips... 6 Oeds (SNABCD EF) is to be preferred to 6 Oeds... 6 
Kupios (KL). Elsewhere it is God who calls (1 Thess. iv. 7; Rom. 
iv. 17, vill. 30; 2 Tim. i. 9), while the Lord distributes the gifts (xii. 5; 
Eph. iv. 11). D* F, Latt. substitute d:ddoxw for dcardooopat, 

18. Mepitetunpévos tus exdyOn. ‘The sentence is probably 
interrogative (AV., RV.), not hypothetical (Tyndale). The sense 
is much the same. A man who was circumcised before con- 
version is not to efface the signs of his Judaism. Jews did this 
sometimes to avoid being known as Jews in gymnastic’ exercises 
in the palaestra (1 Macc. i. 15; Joseph. Anz. xu. v. 1).* And 
an uncircumcised Gentile is not to seek circumcision; Gal. 
v. 2, 3; Acts xv. I, 5, 19, 24, 28. St Paul, while proclaiming 
Gentile liberty, acts as a Jew to Jews (ix. 20). See Dobschiitz, 
Probleme, p. 84. 

Kéxdnral ris (NABP), tes xéxXnra (DFG), ms éxd76n (EK L). 


xéxXynrac tis is doubtless right; the perf. may indicate that these cases 
were generally earlier, Jews converted before Gentiles. 


19. 4 tepitopy obS€v Eotiv, kal } akpoBuotia obdS€v eotwv. The 
Apostle repeats this in two somewhat different forms in Gal. v. 6 
and vi. 15; €v yap XpiotG “Inood ovte repitopy te iaxver ovre 
axpoBvotia, adda miotis 8 ayarys evepyoumevn, and ovre yap 
TepiTon Te eativ ovte dxkpoBvotia, aAAa Kawwy KTiow. Having 
previously proclaimed the folly of adopting circumcision, when 
the freedom of the Gospel was open to them, as he has just 
done here in simpler terms (i) wepitepvéo Ow), he points out that 
the difference between circumcision and uncircumcision is a 
matter of small moment. Those who have it need not be 
ashamed of it, and those who have it not certainly need not 
seek it. “The peculiar excellence of the maxim is its declara- 
tion that those who maintain the absolute necessity of rejecting 
forms are as much opposed to the freedom of the Gospel as 
those who maintain the absolute necessity of retaining them ” 
(Stanley). 

Photius, G. Syncellus, and others say that the maxim is a 
quotation from an Apocalypse of Moses. It is extremely un- 
likely that such a principle would be contained in any Jewish 
book earlier than St Paul. Such a book, however, might after- 

* St Paul’s prohibition must be understood in a wider sense. A Jew, 


when he becomes a Christian, is not ostentatiously to drop all Jewish customs 
and modes of life. The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T. 


VII. 19-21] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 147 


wards be interpolated by a Christian with these words of the 
Apostle. See Lightfoot on Gal. vi. 15 ; Weinel, S¢ Paul, wy 56; 
and consider the Apostle’s action in circumcising Timothy and 
not circumcising Titus. 

GAG THPHOLS K.T.A. ‘But keeping of the commandments of 
God is everything.” As in ill. 7 and x. 24, the strongly advers- 
ative dAAd implies that the opposite of the previous negative is 
understood. In Gal. v. 6 and vi. 15 the adda introduces two 
different things (see above), both of them different from this. 
Of all three of them we may say, 7” Ais stat totus Christianismus 
(Beng).* Tipyots evroAXGv occurs Ecclus. xxxii. 23, typ. vopwv, 
Wisd. vi. 18: typety tas evroAds, Matt. xix. 173 1 Tim. vi. 14; 
1 John ii. 3, where see Westcott. On évr. cod see Deissmann, 
Light, p. 381. 


20. Repetition of the principle laid down; ‘In the secular 
surroundings of the calling in which he is called, in these let him 
abide’; and ev ravry emphasizes the charge to make no change 
of condition.t In N.T., «Ajous is almost exclusively Pauline, and 
it means either the act of calling (Phil. ii. 14) or the circum- 
stances in which the calling took place ( i. 26 and here): it does 
not mean ‘vocation.’ Lightfoot quotes Epictetus (i. 29 § 46), 
pdptus bd Tod cod KexAnpévos, and (§ 49) Tatra péAAEs papte- 
pelv Kal katacxvvew tiv KAjow iy KéxAynKev [6 Beds], 


21. Soddo0s exAnOys; ‘Wast thou a slave when thou wast 
called? Do not mind that.’ A slave can be a good Christian 
(Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22; Tit. il. g). Thackeray quotes the 
iambic line in Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber 7, dovdos répuKas ; od 
peéreoti go. Adyov. Here again, the clause might be either inter- 
rogative or hypothetical. 

GAN ei kat... paddov xpjoat. ‘But still, if thou canst also 
become free, rather make use of it than not.’ The xaé affects 
dvvacat, not ei; ‘if thou art also able to become free as well as 
to remain a slave’; if the one course is as possible as the other ; 
then what? It is remarkable that the Apostle’s advice is inter- 
preted in opposite ways. He says, ‘Rather make use of it.’ 
Make use of what? Surely, ro dvvacGae eAevepos yever Oa, the 
possibility of becoming free. This was the last thing mentioned ; 
and ‘make use of’ suits a new condition better than the old 
condition of slavery. Still more decidedly does the aorist (ypjoat, 


* Stanley has an interesting, but rather fanciful note, connecting this 
passage with the Father, Gal. v. 6 with the Son, and Gal. vi. 15 with the 
Holy Spirit. 

+ Manufacturers of idols who became Christians claimed this principle as 
justifying their continuing to earn a living in this way. ‘Can’t you starve?” 
says Tertullian ; fides famem non timet (De /dol. 5, 12). 


148 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIL 21, 22 


not xp) imply a new condition. The advice, thus interpreted, 
is thoroughly in keeping with the Apostle’s tenderness of heart 
and robustness of judgment. ‘Do not be miserable because you 
are a slave ; yet, if you can just as easily be set free, take advan- 
tage of it rather than not.’ He regarded marriage as a hindrance 
to the perfection of the Christian life (vv. 32-35). Was not 
slavery, with its hideous temptations, a far greater hindrance ? * 

Nevertheless, various commentators, ancient and modern, 
insist on going back to dodAos for the dat. to be supplied with 
xpjoae and understand r7j dovAeig. Uvtere servitute quast re bona 
et utili: servitus enim valet ad humilitatem servandam et ad 
patientiam exercendam (Herv.) It is urged that in this way 
the Apostle remains consistent with his rule, ‘Abide in the 
calling in which thou wast called.’ But dAXd’ ei wai... xpijoa 
is a parenthetic mitigation given in passing; like eav dé kai. . . 
kata\Aayjtw in v. 11, it mentions a possible exception. The 
meaning will then be, ‘Slavery is not intolerable for a Christian, 
but an opportunity for emancipation need not be refused.’ 
The Christian slave is not to rebel against a heathen master, 
any more than a Christian wife against a heathen husband ; but 
if the heathen is ready to grant freedom, the Christian slave, 
like the Christian wife, may take it without scruple. For this 
view, which is that of Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, and Beza, see 
Evans, Lightfoot, and Goudge; for the other, which is that of 
Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, and Edwards, see Alford, Ellicott 
and Schmiedel; but Schmiedel admits that xpjoa, if rH dovAea 
is to be understood, hat allerdings etwas Seltsames. 


22. & ydp é€v kupiw KdnOels BodXos. ‘For he who, while in 
slavery, was called to be in the Lord is the Lord’s freedman.’ ¢ 
Or we may take 6 with dodAos, ‘For the slave who was called in 
the Lord’; but the next clause is against this. A slave ‘called 
in the Lord’ is in relation to Christ a freedman: dzeAcvepos, 
like /ibertus, is a relative term, used c. ge. of the emancipator. 
Although in his secular condition he remains a slave, in his 
spiritual condition he has been set free: he is kAntds dytos (i. 1), 
and is free from the bondage of sin (Rom. vi. 6). There is no 
hint here that his master, if he were a Christian, would be sure 
to set him free ; and even Philem. 21 does not imply that. See 
Harnack, A/ission and Expansion, 1. pp. 167f.; Deissmann, 
Light, PP. 323, 326-333, 382, 392- 

* Bachmann admits that the Apostle’s recommending people to disregard 
an opportunity of being freed from slavery zweifellos etwas Uberraschendes hat. 

t In ordinary language, dweAevOepos Kuplov would mean that he had been 


the Lord’s slave and that the Lord had manumitted him. He had been in 


slavery and the Lord had freed him from it, and this justifies the expression, 
The Lord was his rpoordrns. 


VII. 22, 23] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 149 


‘In like manner, he that was called being free is Christ’s 
slave’; or, ‘the free man by being called is Christ’s slave,’ 
he can no longer do as he likes to his own hurt; he is 
bound to obey his new spiritual Master and Lord. Such a 
bondservant of Christ was the Apostle himself, and he gloried 
in the fact (Rom. i. 1; Phil. i. 1; Tit. i, 1). Nowhere else in 
the Bible is dreAevOepos found. 


KL, Copt. Aeth. Arm. add kat after duolws: DEF G add 6é xal: 
SAB P 17, Vulg. omit. «al or dé cal is usual after duolws, and hence the 
insertion ; but here neither is required. 


23. Tints HyopdoOyte. ‘This recalls vi. 20 and applies it to 
both classes. ‘The social slave, who has been set free by Christ, 
and the social freeman, who has become enslaved to Christ, have 
alike been bought by God, and are now His property. In one 
sense Christ’s death was an act of emanicipation, it set free 
from the thraldom of sin; in another sense it was a change of 
ownership.* It is a mistake to suppose that the words are 
addressed only to those who are socially free, charging them not 
to lose their freedom. Such a charge would be superfluous. 
Moreover, the change from the singular to the plural intimates 
that both classes are now exhorted. See below. 

In commenting on this verse, Origen lets us know that he 
was not the first to comment on this Epistle. He speaks of 
what ot Aourol épunvevtal say on the subject. See on 1x. 20, 

ph yiveobe SodAn dvOpdmwy. ‘Do not become, do not show 
yourselves to be, bondservants of men.’ The words are obscure. 
It is very improbable that the prohibition is addressed to those 
who are free, and that it forbids them to sell themselves into 
slavery. Such a prohibition could not be needed. Moreover, 
the change from the 2nd pers. sing. to the 2nd pers. plur. shows 
that he is now addressing all his converts. Origen strangely 
interprets the slavery as meaning marriage, in which neither 
partner rod id(ov cdparos efovordler, and from which both partners 
should seek freedom ex cuvpduwvov. The bondage must mean 
‘some condition of life which is likely to violate God’s rights of 
ownership’ (Lev. xxv. 42, 55). The interpretation, ‘Do not 
become enslaved to any far/y-/eader,’ is remote from the context. 
More probably, ‘Do not let social relations or public opinion or 
evil advisers interfere with the absolute service which is due to 
Him who bought you with His Son’s blood.’ 

* Tn the time of St Paul, ‘ Lord’ was throughout the whole Eastern world 
a universally understood religious conception, The Apostle’s confession of 
his Master as ‘our Lord Jesus Christ,’ with the complementary idea that 
Christians were dearly bought ‘slaves,’ was at once intelligible in all the 
fulness of its meaning to every one in the Greek Orient” (Deissmann, Vew 
Light on the N.T., p. 79). See Lietzmann, Greek Papyrt, p. 4. 


150 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VII. 24 


24. The general principle is stated once more with the 
addition of rapa eG. This may mean ‘in the presence of God,’ 
or ‘in God’s household,’ or ‘on God’s side.’ The last agrees 
well with pevérw, and makes a good antithesis to dv@pd7wv: ‘let 
your attachments be heavenwards, not earthwards.’ With that 
proviso, all secular conditions, whether of family life, or caste, or 
service, are capable of being made the expression of a Christian 
character. Deissmann, Zigh/, p. 330. 


VII. 25-40. Respecting unmarried women, the transitory 
and trying character of the present world ts against a change 
of condition. The unmarried state leaves people more free 
Jor God's service. 


25 With regard to unmarried daughters, I have no charge 
from the Lord to pass on to you; but I offer my opinion as that 
of a man who through the Lord’s mercy is not unworthy of your 
confidence, and who perhaps knows Christ’s mind, although he 
cannot quote any words of His. 7° Well then, I think that 
owing to the distressful times that are upon us, it is an excellent 
thing for people to remain as they are. 77 Are you united toa 
wife? Do not seek to be freed from the tie. Are you at 
present free from this tie? Do not seek to be bound by it. 
But if you do marry, you have committed no sin; "and if a 
maiden marries, she has committed no sin. Yet people who 
make these ties are sure to have increased affliction in the affairs 
of this life. But I, as your adviser, would spare you this, if I 
could. °° This, however, I do affirm, Brothers. The time 
allowed before the Advent is now very narrow. This means that 
henceforth those who have wives should serve as strictly as those 
who have none, *° that those who weep should live as though no 
sorrow disturbed them, those who are enjoying life as not 
absorbed in their enjoyment, those who buy as not taking full 
possession, *!and those who use this world as not eager to use 
it to the full: for transitory indeed is the outward fashion of 
this world. * Yet I want you to be free from the anxieties 
which the world produces. When a man is unmarried, he is 
anxious about our Lord’s interests, studying how he may please 
our Lord ; ** but when once he is married, he is anxious about 
worldly interests, studying how he may please his wife. % Parted 
also by a similar division of interests are the married and the 


VII. 25] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 151 


unmarried woman(?). For the unmarried woman is anxious 
about our Lord’s interests, striving hard to be holy both in body 
and in spirit ; but when once she is married, she is anxious about 
worldly interests, studying how she may please her husband. 
8° Now I am saying all this simply for your own spiritual profit. 
I have no wish to throw a halter over you and check Christian 
liberty. On the contrary, I want you to choose what is seemly, 
and, like Mary, to wait upon our Lord without Martha’s 
distractions. 

86'That is my opinion ; but there are limitations. If a father 
think that the way in which he is acting towards his unmarried 
daughter is not seemly, because she has long since reached a 
marriageable age and ought now to marry without delay, seeing 
that her nature seems to require it,—he must do as he thinks 
best. There is nothing sinful in it; let the marriage take place. 
37 But when a father has settled convictions that a single life is 
best for his daughter, and has no need to surrender these, but 
has full right to carry out his own wishes, and has decided in his 
own mind to do so,—he will act rightly if he keeps his daughter 
free. °8It comes to this, therefore, that both of them act rightly. 
The father who gives his child in marriage does well, and he who 
does not do so will be found to have done still better. 

39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives ; but if he is 
dead, she is free to marry any one she pleases, provided it be in 
holy matrimony with a Christian. 4? But a widow is a happier 
woman if she abides as she is to the end, according to my 
judgment. And I believe that I, no less than others, can claim 
to have the guidance of God’s Spirit. 


25. Mept 8€ tav mapOevwy. It is clear from the use of 
mapGevos in vv. 28, 34, 36, 37, 35, that the word here applies to 
women only; contrast Rev. xiv. 4. On this subject no tradi- 
tional teaching of Christ had reached the Apostle (v. 10); he 
could not frame a judgment partly based upon His teaching 
(v. 12); nor did he feel justified in giving an independent 
Apostolic decision (v. 17), for the responsibility of deciding must 
rest with the father. He is willing, however, to state his own 
opinion; and he intimates that his wonderful conversion and 
call are strong evidence that the opinion of one who has been so 
divinely favoured is worthy of trust. As in 1 Pet. ii. 10 (see 
Hort), #Aenpevos is used “in reference to the signal mercy of the 
gift of the Gospel”; and this in his case included the call to be 


152 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VII. 25, 26 


an Apostle. We have a similar use of 7Ae74ypev in 2 Cor. iv. 1, 
and of #Ae7Onv in t Tim. i. 13, 16. Here murs, ‘trustworthy,’ 
is used as in iv. 2 and1 Tim. i 12; cf.  paptupia Kupiov morn 
(Ps. xix. 8); not as in 2 Cor. vi. 15 and 1 Tim. iv. 1o. 

We have the same contrast between émitayn and yvopy in 
2 Cor. vill. 8, 10. Here the Vulgate has praeceptum and con- 
stlium to distinguish the words, which led to the later distinction 
between ‘precepts’ and ‘counsels of perfection’ (Stanley). 


26. vopitw odv. ‘I think therefore.’ He does not mean that 
he is not sure: what is stated in v. 25 shows that ovv introduces 
a decided conviction; and perhaps the use of irdpyew rather 
than efva: shows that the conviction is of long standing. He holds 
that this is a sound axiom to start from ; it is good in principle. 

Sia Thy eveotacay dvdyxnv. These words are an important 
qualification. The Apostle’s opinion is determined by ‘the 
present necessity,’ ‘the straitness now upon us’ (Heb. ix. 9), 
owing to the disturbances and dangers which he saw; and also 
by the Advent which he believed to be very near (xvi. 22), 
although not yet present (2 Thess. ii. 2). We cannot assume 
that his opinion would have been the same in a more peaceful 
period, and after experience had proved that the Advent might 
be long delayed. For dvayxn of external distress see Luke xxi. 23, 
where the meaning is very similar to the meaning here; 2 Cor. 
vi. 4, xil. 10; 1 Thess. ili. 7; Ps. Sol. v. 8; Testament of Joseph 
ii. 4. Thackeray (St Paul and Jewish Thought, pp. 105 f.) 
thinks that this passage may reflect Jewish beliefs in the ‘“‘ Woes 
of the Messiah,” the birth-pangs which were to precede His 
Advent (2 Esdr. v. 1-12, vi. 18-24, ix. 1-9 ; /ubilees xxiil. 11-25 ; 
Assump. of Moses x. 3-6; Apoc. of Baruch xxvii. 1 f., where see 
Charles, xlviii. 31-39, Ixx. 3-10). Lightfoot (on Gal. i. 4) 
contends that €vecréoav means ‘ present’ rather than ‘imminent,’ 
but the difference is not great. A trouble which is believed to 
be near and certain is already a present distress. 

drt kahov dvOpumw 7d obtws etvar. ‘That it is good, I say, for 
a person so to be.’ The construction of the verse is not regular, 
but quite intelligible: 67. is ‘that,’ not ‘because,’ and the 
second xaAdv picks up and continues the first. But doubt 
arises as to the meaning of 70 ovrws elvat. ‘To be thus’ is vague, 
and ‘thus’ may have three meanings: (1) ‘as he is,’ z.e. he is to 
remain without change of condition; (2) ‘ as I am,’ or as ai 
wapOévo are, #.e. unmarried ; (3) ‘as I now tell you,’ referring to 
what follows. The first is probably right; it is a repetition of 
the principle already given in v. 24, of which principle v. 27 is an 
illustration. The otrws in v. 40 and Rom. ix. 20 is similar. 
There is not much difference in effect between (1) and (3). 


VII. 26-28] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 153 


Origen prefers (2), and points out that this is the fourth time 
(vv. 1, 8, 26 dzs) that the Apostle has used xadév of celibacy, 
whereas all that he says of marriage is that it is not sin. 


27. Séecar yuvarki; Like vv. 18 and 21, this may be either 
interrogative or hypothetical. The perfect indicates the settled 
condition of the marriage-tie, and yvvatxi means ‘wife,’ not 
‘woman’: betrothal to an unmarried woman is not included. 
There could be no doubt about this case. The Lord had 
prohibited divorce ; therefore wy Cyret Avouv, ‘never at any time 
(pres. imperat.) seek freedom.’ The advice is permanent. No- 
where else in N.T. does Avows occur. In LXX it is used only 
of the solving of hard sayings (Eccles. viii. 1; Dan. xii. 8; 
Wisd. viii. 8). See Milligan, Greek Papyrt, p. 106. 

AéAuoat dd y. Here again the perfect means, ‘ Art thou in 
a state of freedom from matrimonial ties?’ It does not mean 
‘Hast thou been freed from a wife by death or divorce?’ The 
verb is chosen because of the preceding Avow, and bachelors as 
well as widowers are addressed. Here it cannot be assumed 
that such men are not to marry, because they were unmarried 
when they were called to be Christians. The Lord had not 
said this. But 7” the existing circumstances His Apostle advises 
this. In neither clause need we translate pa Lyrec ‘Cease to 
seek.’ We do not know that any Corinthian Christians had 
been trying to be divorced from their wives, though probably 
some were trying to be married. 


28. édv 8€ kai yapnons. He at once hastens to assure those 
who have already done what he now advises them not to do, that 
they have done nothing wrong: ‘But if it be that thou do 
marry.’ The xaé, as in v. 11, intensifies the verb; if it has 
already gone as far as that. See Evans on this aorist. 


The ‘and’ in ‘ but and if’ (AV., RV.) is not a translation of the kal, 


but an archaic reduplication of the ‘if.’ Perhaps ‘and if’ is a corruption 

of ‘anif,’ for ‘an’=‘if,’ as in the saying ‘If ¢/s and ams were pots and 
- ? 

pans. 


In this verse we have both the later (yau7joys) and the classical (yjun) 
form of the aorist. But some texts (KL, Chrys.) have altered yauyoys to 
yipys, while DEF G have \dSys yuvatka, Vulg. acceperis uxorem. In 
ix. 21, 22 we have both xepdavG and xepdjow. 


ovx fpaptes. The thought goes on to the marriage as a fact ; 
‘there was no sin in that.’ This sounds incongruous in English, 
and we must say ‘thou hast not sinned.’ Origen remarks that 
Paul does not say édv yaprjons, Kaddv. 

4 wap0évos. If the article is genuine, itis generic: a reference 
to some particular case at Corinth is not likely. 

OXtpuv Sé TH capki éfouow ot tr. ‘But affliction for the flesh 


154 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIE 28, 29 


will be the lot of those who act thus.’ Quum diceret, habituros 
tribulationem carnis, vel in carne, significat, sollicttudines et 
angustias, guibus conjuges implicantur, ex negotits terrents pro- 
venire. Caro igitur hic pro homine externo capitur (Caly.). This 
would be specially true in the persecutions which were to 
precede the Advent. As Bacon says, “He that hath wife and 
children hath given hostages to fortune” ; and “children sweeten 
labours, but they make misfortunes more bitter.” Origen makes 
Oris refer specially to the wife, quoting Gen. i. 16. The 
dative may be locative ; ‘in the flesh’ (AV., RV.) ; ¢*tbulationem 
carnis (Vulg.); pressuram carnis (Tert.); afflictionem in carne 
(Beza). Cf. oxoAoW 77H capxi, ‘thorn for the flesh’ (2 Cor. xii. 7). 
éyo Sé Guay petSounar. ‘But I for my part spare you’: this 
is his aim as their spiritual adviser. The emphatic ¢yd makes 
‘I won’t pain you by saying more’ an improbable interpretation. 
In what way does he spare them? Volo vos tllam tribulationem 
sentire (Herv.). deo quia, secundum indulgentiam conjugia non 
omnino prohibeo (Primasius). Atto admits both reasons, but the 
former is probably right, and it almost excludes the latter. He 
aims at keeping them from affliction by persuading them not to 
marry. Gf. 2 Cori. 23, xi; sie 
yauhoys (8 BP [yaujon A] 17) rather than yiuys(K L, Orig. Chrys.) to 
agree with the following yjun, or AdBys yuvaixa (DF, Latt. acceperzs 
uxorem), Tert. duxer’s uxorem. It is less easy to decide whether 7 before 


mapévos should be inserted (XW AD EK LP) or omitted (BF G). D*F 
insert év before ry capxl. 


29. Todto Sé pnt. ‘ But this Ido declare.’ The change from 
A€yw (v. 6, i. 12, Vi. 5) to nui should be marked in translation, 
whether the change has significance or not; but even the RV. 
fails to do this. The change probably gives special seriousness 
to the assertion. ‘But, though I counsel none to change their 
state, I do counsel all to change their attitude towards all 
earthly things.’ We have the same expression, introducing a 
solemn warning, xv. 50; cf. x. 15, 19: nowhere else in N.T. or 
LXX does the 1st pers. sing. occur. The totro does not refer to 
what precedes ; he is not repeating what he has just said. He is 
reminding them of a grave fact, which has to be considered in 
connexion with marriage, and indeed with the whole of life. He 
has been insisting on the dvdéyxy already present: he now insists 
on the (supposed) shortness of the interval before the Advent. 
Both facts confirm the advice which he gives. 

6 katpds cuveatadpévos éorw. ‘The allotted time has become 
short,’ lit. ‘has been drawn together so as to be small in 
amount.’ As in Rom. xiii. 11, 6 xaipds is used almost as a 
technical term for the period before the Advent (Westcott on 
Heb. ix. 9). Hort (on 1 Pet. i. 11) thinks that it was owing 


VII. 29] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 1$5 


probably to its use in Daniel (ix. 27, etc.) that in our Lord’s time 
it was specially used with reference to national religious expecta- 
tions. But St Paul by no means always uses it in this special 
eschatological sense, although he commonly uses it of ‘a fixed 
and limited time’ or ‘a fitting period,’ while xpdvos is time 
generally, andis unlimited. That he still believed that the Second 
Coming was near is evident from x. 11, xv. 21; but a little later 
his view seems to be changing (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 
Pp. 3793 Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 113). 
Calvin and others explain the words here of the shortness of 
human life ; ‘you are sure to die before long.’ This makes good 
sense, but probably not the right sense. 

Some texts (D E F G) ins. érc before 6 xaipéds : the best omit. A more 
important point is the punctuation of what follows. Should a stop, 
comma, or colon be placed after éoriv, and 76 Xourdy be taken with iva 
k.T.A. 2? Or should it be placed after 76 Aourdv, and 7d Nouwrdy be taken with 
what precedes? Editors are divided; but the former is better for two 
reasons. In the Pauline Epp. 76 \o7dév commonly leads (Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8 ; 
2 Thess. iii. 1), as also does Nouréy (2 Cor, xiii. 11; 1 Thess. iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. 
iv. 8). And 76 dourdy is weak after cuverr. éoriv, ‘is straitened as to its 
residue.’ 

TS Aovrrdy tva Kal ot é€x. y. ‘So that, henceforward those also 
who have wives may be as though they had none.’ St Paul 
rather frequently puts words in front of iva for emphasis ; 2 Cor. 
li. 4; Gal. ii. 10; Rom. vii. 13; Col. iv. 16. It is quite clear 
that, if the conditions of the time are such that those who have 
wives ought to be as if they had none, then it is foolish to 
marry ; for as soon as one had taken a wife one would have to 
behave as if one had not got one, z.c. one would undertake a 
great responsibility, and then have the responsibility of trying to 
be free from it. Far better, in such circumstances, never to under- 
take it. In 2 Esdr. xvi. 40-48 there is a good deal that resembles 
this passage; but 2 Esdr. xv., xvi. are an addition made by a 
Christian about A.p. 265, and the writer very likely had this 
passage in his mind when he wrote. 

The force of the xaé is not quite certain. He has been 
saying that in such times the unmarried state is best, and then 
goes on to say that not only the married, but also all bound in 
any earthly circumstances, should practise ‘detachment’; then 
the xaf would mean ‘both’ (AV., RV.). Even when three or 
four things are strung together in Greek, the first may have kad as 
well as the rest. In Acta Pauli et Theclae (p. 42, ed. Tisch.) 
we have paxdpior of éxovres yuvatkas ws py ExovTes, Ott avTol 
ayyeAo. Weod yevyoovrat. ie 

The meaning of the illustrations is fairly clear. Married men 
are apt to become absorbed in domestic cares, mourners in their 
sorrow, buyers in the preservation of what they have bought. A 


156 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIL 29-32 


Christian, with dangers all round him and the Advent close at 
hand, ought not to be engrossed in any of his surroundings, 
knowing how temporary they are. He should learn how to sit 
loose to all earthly ties. 


30. ds ph Katéxovtes. ‘As not entering upon full ownership,’ 
or ‘keeping fast hold upon’ (xi. 2, xv. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 10; 1 Thess. 
v. 21, where see Milligan, p. 155). Earthly goods are a trust, 
not a possession. 

31. ds ph Kataxpdpevor. ‘As not using it to the utmost’; 
lit. ‘using it down to the ground,’ and so, ‘using it completely 
up.’ We are not to try to get all we can out of externals. The 
rendering ‘abusing’ or ‘misusing’ is not the right idea.* Here 
and in x. 18 only: in Ep. Jer. 28 of the idolatrous priests ‘ using 
up for their own profit’ the sacrificial offerings. The man who 
remembers that he is only a sojourner in the world is likely to 
remember also that worldly possessions are not everything, and 
that worldly surroundings cannot be made permanent. Lightfoot 
quotes from Seneca (Z%. Aor. Ixxiv. 18), “ Let us use them, let 
us not boast of them: and let us use them sparingly, as a loan 
deposited with us, which will soon depart.” 

Tapdyet yap To oxjpat.«.7T. ‘For transitory is the fashion of 
this world.’ There is no need to take the yap back to 6 xatpods 
auvectaApévos eativ. Indeed, this does not make very good 
sense. The yap explains the reason for the preceding counsels, 
especially the last one. To oyjpa rt. x. is not a mere periphrasis 
for 6 koopos: the phrase expresses ‘the outward appearance,’ 
all that can be apprehended by the senses. This may change, 
and does change, season by season, although the world itself 
abides. Praeterit figura mundi, non natura, ut in aliam spectem 
mundus vertatur (Herv.).¢ Cf. 2 Esdr. iv. 26; and see Deiss- 
mann, Ligh/, p. 281; Resch, Agrapha, p. 274. 


Because ypdc@ac commonly has the dative (2 Cor. i. 17, iii. 12) some 
texts have corrected réy xéopov (the reading of S* AB D* FG 17) to rg 
coon. Even in class. Grk., xataxpao6ar often has the accusative: in ix. 
18 it has the dative. 


32. dpepiuvous. ‘Free from anxieties,’ such as ‘choke the 
word’ (Mark iv. 19) and distract from the thought of ‘ that Day’ 
(Luke xxi. 34). ‘Without carefulness’ (AV.) is not the meaning : 
cf. Matt. xxviii. 14; Wisd. vi. 15, vii. 23. ‘Carefulness’ formerly 


* The Vulgate has ¢anguam non utantur, which seems to imply different 
Greek: Beza, ut non abutentes, which is right, for aéztd often means ‘to use 
up.’ ‘Misusing’ would be rapaxpdpevo. In Philo (De Josepho xxiv.) we 
have XPO ui Tapaxpwpevos. 

t+ Excepting Phil. ii, 8, ex4ua occurs nowhere else in N.T., and, excepting 


Isa. ili 17, nowhere in LXX. The destruction of the material universe is 
not a Pauline idea. 


VII. 32, 33] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 157 


meant ‘anxiety’ (Ps. cxxvii. 3). Bacon couples it with ‘trouble 
of mind,’ and Latimer calls it ‘wicked’ (Wright, Bidle Word- 
Book, p. 111). In papyri the wish that a person dpépysvos yévy is 
common. The Apostle goes on to give examples, and to show by 
his wording that there is a right kind of peépiva as weli as a wrong. 
m@s dpéoyn TO Kupiw. The thought of pleasing Christ and 
God is frequent in the Pauline Epp. (Rom. viii. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 
15, iv. 1; Col. i. 10; 2 Cor. v. 9). See on x. 33. Through- 
out vv. 32-34 dpeoyn (NABDEFG) is certainly the right 
reading, not dpécee K LP). See Matt. vi. 24 and 2 Tim. ii. 4. 


33. 6 8€ yapyoas. The aorist points to the time when the 
change of interest took place: ‘once a man is married.’ 
Epictetus (Zzchir. 18) holds that the care of external things (ra 
extos) is fatal to devotion to one’s higher nature: a man is sure 
(aoa avdyxy) to neglect the one in caring for the other. 


After 77 yuvaixt there is much doubt as to punctuation and reading. 
Does kal peuépiorat belong to v. 33 or v. 34? The Vulg. takes it with 
Vv. 33, et divesus est, ‘and he is a divided man,’ ‘he is no longer single- 
hearted.’ This spoils the balance of &s dp. 7.«. and w&s dp. Ty. More- 
over, it isa weak addition to the latter. The arrangement in AV. and 
RV. seems better. Some texts (D? E FG KL) omit the «ai before peué- 
picrat, and with that omission weuépiorar must belong to what follows: but 
this cal is probably genuine (8 A B D* P 17, Vulg. Syrr. Arm, Aeth.). So 
also the xa after wen. (XN ABD? FGKLP, Vulg. Aeth.). The position 
of 7 dyapos is uncertain. Should it be inserted after: yuv7 only (BP 
Vulg.), or after 7 mapfévos only (DE FGKL Syrr. Arm ), or in both 
places (N A F?17, Aeth.)? This third reading cannot be right, and the 
evidence for 7 dyapos after 7 yuv7 is thereby weakened. If, however, % 
Gyapos be read after 7 yuv7 only, then kai weuéptorac must be taken with 
v. 33. The alternative readings therefore are: ry yuvarkl kal peuépirrar, 
kal ) yuvh 7 dyapos kal 4 mapOévos mepiuvg T. T. K. (Lach. Treg. WH.) and: 
TH yuvatkl, Kal pepéprorat Kal } yur) Kal 7 wapbévos, 7 dyapos pepimrg T.T.K. 
(Tisch. Alf. Rev. Ell.). Lightfoot (writing before the appearance of WH.) 
says: ‘‘I venture to prefer this latter reading, though supported chiefly 
by Western authorities, from internal evidence ; for the sentences then 
become exactly parallel. There is just the same distinction between the 
married woman and the virgin as between the married and the unmarried 
man. The other view throws sense and parallelism into confusion, for 
kal weuépisra is not wanted with v. 33, which is complete in itself. It also 
necessitates the awkward phrase 7 yuvy Kal 7 mapbévos pepimvg. The 
reading 7 yuvh 7 dyauos Kal 7 wapHévos 7 dyapos illustrates the habitual 
practice of scribes to insert as much as possible, and may be neglected.” 
Heinrici proposed a second peuépurac: 7 yuvatkt Kal peuéporar, pepé- 
prorat kal 7 yun. 7 dyayos Kal 7 mapbévos pepyuwg, k.7.A. This is pure con- 
jecture ; but it restores the balance of clauses and accounts for the double 
kat. Findlay thinks it ‘‘tempting.” Bachmann tabulates the confusing 
evidence. See Resch, Agrapha, pp. 8, 183. 

On the other hand, see Introd. § ‘‘ Text.” The question of reading 
must precede and determine that of punctuation. The MS. evidence for 
kal before weuépisra is overwhelming ; that for 7 &yawos immediately after 
‘yur scarcely less so, The sense given to peyvépiora in AV, is ‘ill attested 
and improbable” (WH.) and would require a plural verb. 


158 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VII. 34-36 


34. iva ¥ dyia. Bengel remarks that ayia here means more 
than it does in v. 14: what is set apart from the world for God 
ought to conform to the purity of God and not to the defilements 
of the world: Trench, Syw. § 88; Cremer, pp. 598 f. See rt Tim. 
v. 5, and the art. /Zei/igung in Herzog (Hauck). Stanley quotes 
Queen Elizabeth, who said that England was her husband. 


35. mpds To Spav adtav aipdopov. His aim is not to glorify 
his ministry as Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. xi. 13), but to keep 
them free from cares (v. 32). Cf. x. 33, the only other place in 
N.T. in which ovpdopos occurs. The reading cvpdépov is pro- 
bably wrong, as in x. 33. 

Bpdxov spiv émBddw. ‘Cast a snare upon you’ (AV., RV.) 
gives a wrong idea: /poxos is a halter or lasso, not a trap (here 
only, in N.T.). He has no wish to curtail their freedom, as one 
throws a rope over an animal that is loose, or a person that is to 
be arrested: accesserat lictor injiciebatgue lagueum (Livy i. 26). 
Cf. Philem. 14; Prov. vi. 5. Lagueo trahuntur inviti (Beng.). 

GAG pds TO k.T.A. ‘On the contrary, with a view to’: what 
follows is an expansion of apepipvous: cf. Rom. xiii. 13. 

eUmdpedpov. Cf. rapedpevovres in ix. 13, and ‘ Give me wisdom, 
that sitteth by Thy throne,’ tHv tav cév Opdvwv rapedpov (Wisd. 
ix. 4). The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. Com- 
bined with azepurracrws it suggests the contrast between Mary 
sitting at the Lord’s feet and Martha distracted by much serving, 
mepiearato Tept woAAnv Siaxoviay (Luke x. 40). Cf. iva dmepic- 
TagTOL YevwvTal THS ONS evepyecias, ‘that they might never be 
distracted from Thy goodness’ (Wisd. xvi. 11); and see Ecclus. 
xl. 1, 2. The reading evrpooedpov has hardly any authority.* 


36. The verse indicates that the Corinthians had asked him 
about the duty of a father with a daughter of age to marry. The 
question is what he ought to do, not what she ought to do: his 
wishes, not hers, are paramount. This is in accordance with the 
ideas of that age, and the Apostle does not condemn them. 

There is no need to place a comma after vouife: her being 
of full age is what suggested to the father (who may have been 
warned also by friends) that he is not behaving becomingly 
towards his child in not furthering her marriage. Apparently 
vopiet, like voui~w in v, 26, is used, not of a hesitating opinion 
but of a settled conviction ; and verbally doxnvovelv looks back 


_ * See the remarkable parallel in Epictetus (Dés. iii. 22; Long’s transla- 
tion, Bell, 1903, 11. p. 87): ‘‘ But in the present state of things, which is like 
that of an army placed in battle order, is it not fit that the philosopher should 
without any distraction (daepicmacrov) be employed only on the ministration 


(duaxovla) of God, not tied down to the common duties of mankind, nor 
entangled in the ordinary relations of life?” 


VII. 36 | MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 159 


to evoxynpov in v. 35; but perhaps only verbally, because the 
spheres are so very different. ‘Past the flower of her age’ is 
perhaps too strong for trépaxpos (Vulg. superadulta): Luther is 
right ; zez/ sie eben wohl mannbar ist, and in Corinth there was 
danger that a girl, who was old enough to marry and anxious to 
marry, might go disastrously astray if marriage was refused. In 
Ecclus. xlii. 9 the father is anxious ev veoryte aitas py more 
mapakpaoy. Plato (Rep. 460 E) speaks of peérpios xpovos axpis 
as being 20 for a woman and 30 for a man. “Aoynpoveiv 
occurs nowhere else in N.T., and irépaxpos nowhere else in the 
Bible. 
ovtws ddeider yiveoOar. That he had better let her marry, 
not simply propter voluntatem puellae (Primasius), but because of 
the possible consequences of refusing. ‘Let him do what he 
will’ does not mean that it is a matter of indifference whether 
he allows the marriage or not, and that he can please himself; it 
means that he is free to do what his conviction (vopéGer) has led 
him to wish. It is wholly improbable that ts, adrot and ds (v. 37) 
refer to the suitor, the prospective bridegroom. The Corinthians 
would not have asked about him. It is the father’s or guardian’s 
duty that is the question. Still more improbable is the conjecture 
that the Apostle is referring to a kind of spiritual betrothal 
between unmarried persons. It is supposed that Christian 
spinsters with ascetic tendencies, in order to avoid ordinary 
marriage, each placed themselves formally under the protection 
of a man, who was in some sense responsible for the woman. 
She might or might not share the same house, but she was 
pledged to share his spiritual life. And the meaning of v. 36 
would then be that the man who has formed a connexion of this 
kind may, without sin, turn it into an ordinary marriage. In this 
way the plural yapeirwoar is free from all difficulty. But, quite 
independently of the improbability that St. Paul would sanction 
so perilous an arrangement, there is the obstacle of yapé{wv in 
v. 38, which everywhere in N.T. (Matt. xxii. 30, xxiv. 38; Mark 
xii. 25 ; Luke xvil. 27, xx. 35) means ‘ g7ve in marriage’ (in LXX 
it does not occur). In spite of this, some make it mean ‘marry’ ; 
while others accept the absurdity that the man who has formed a 
special union with a woman may give her in marriage to another 
man. The yapifwv is decisive: the Apostle is speaking of a 
father or guardian disposing of an unmarried daughter or ward. 
yapeirwoav. The plural is elliptic, but quite intelligible ; 
‘Let the daughter and her suitor marry.’ Cf. pefvwow, 1 Tim. 
i a a 
To avoid the awkwardness, D* FG, Arm., Aug. read yauelrw, while 
def Vulg., Ambrst. have now peccat si nubat, ‘he sinneth not if she 
marry.’ 


160 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VII. 37-39 


37. ds Be gornxey . . . EBpatos. It is assumed that a father 
would originally be of the Apostle’s opinion, that dca ti everra- 
gav avayxny, it is better for a daughter to remain single; and the 
case is now stated of a father who is able to abide by that con- 
viction, because his daughter’s circumstances do not compel him 
to change it. There is in her condition no é¢e(Aa yiverbar, no 
avayxn to determine the father to act against his general principle. 
In N.T., édpatos is peculiar to Paul (xv. 58; Col. i. 23); in LXX 
it does not occur, but is frequent in Symm. Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15. 

efougiav Sé exer mepi rod iSiou @& ‘He can do as he likes 
about his personal wishes’ (€£eorwv, vi. 12, x. 23), cum virgo non 
adversaretur sed assentiretur huic paternae voluntati (Herv.) 
The repetition of idos respecting his will and heart, and the 
change to éavrod respecting his daughter, seem to mark the 
predominance of the father in the matter. Similarly, in v. 2 we 
have tiv €avrov yuvatka, and in v. 4 Tod idiov gwparos. With 
Kéxpixey COMpare Kékpixa in v. 3, and with the emphatic rodro 
preparing for what is to follow, compare 1 Thess. iv. 3. 

tpetv. ‘To keep her as she is,’ ‘guard her in a state of 
singleness,’ not ‘to keep her for himself.’ On zoujoe see v. 38. 


€dpaios comes last in its clause with emphasis (SW A B D E P), not im- 
mediately after éornxev (KL): FG, de Aeth. Arm. omit édpaios. K L 
omit avrod before édpaios. After xéxpixev, év 7. idig x. (NW A B P) is to be 
preferred to év 7. x. atro0(D EF GKL). rod before rnpeiv (D E F G K L) 
should be omitted (8 A B P 17, ed). 


38. kai 6 yapitwy ... kato py. This probably means ‘ Both 
he who does amd he who does not’: they both act well. Or, 
‘It ts equally true that A. acts well, and that B. will act better.’ 
By a dexterous turn, which perhaps is also humorous, the Apostle 
gives the preference to the one who does not give his daughter 
in marriage. The change from zrovet to zroujore is also effective : 
the one ‘does well,’ the other ‘will be found to do better,’ for 
experience will confirm his decision. This adds and xpeiocov 
may be said to sum up the results of the whole chapter. 


yauifwr (S ABDE 17) rather than éxyaultwy (K LP). ri éavrod 
maptévov (NAP) is perhaps preferable to 7. 7. éavrov (BD E, Vulg. 
virginem suam): KL, AV. omit the words. xadds roe? (SN ADEK LP, 
Vulg.) rather than x. roujoe (B); and Kpetocov mojoer (S& A B 17, Copt.) 
rather than xp. rove’ (DE FGKLP, Vulg.). Copyists thought that both 


verbs must be in the same tense; some changed moet to rrovjoet, and others 
mojoet to moet, asin AV, 


39. A few words are added about the remarriage of widows. 
As their case is covered by vv. 8 and 34 we may suppose that 
the Corinthians had asked about the matter. In Rom. vii. 1-6 
the principle stated here is used again metaphorically to illustrate 
the transition from law to grace: é¢” Scov xpévov appears in both 


VII. 89, 40] MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS 161 


passages. Romans was written soon after 1 Corinthians. There 
we have eav Sé arofavy 6 avyp: for KoynnOy see on xi. 30.* 

povov év Kuptw. ‘Only as a member of Christ,’ which implies 
that she marries a Christian.} To marry a heathen, especially in 
Corinth, would make loyalty to Christ very difficult: cf. v. 22, 
ix. I, 2, Xl. 11, xv. 58, xvi. 19. For the ellipse of the verb after 
povov see Lightfoot on Gal. ii. 10 and v. 13. 


Rom. vii. 2 has influenced the text here. N° D?EFGLP ins. véup 
after d€dera, but 8* A B D* 17, Am. Copt. Aeth. Arm. omit. For xoiu74p, 
A, Orig. Bas. have aro@av7. 


40. pakapwrtépa. In the same sense as paxapioy paddXov, 
Acts xx. 35. She will have more real happiness if she does not 
marry again. There is no inconsistency between this and 1 Tim. 
v. 14. The ‘younger widows’ come under the rule given in 
U. 9. 

ottws. Lx statu guo, as in 2 Pet. ill. 4, ravta ovrws diapever. 
Here the word refers to the condition which she entered when 
her husband died. This confirms the interpretation of otrws in 
v. 26. In both cases the person had better make no change. 

kata Thy epyy yvdpnv. The €uyv is emphatic, and implies 
that there are other opinions. 

Sox S€ Kays. Mon dubietatem significat (Primasius) any more 
than vopifw (v. 26). ‘And IJ also think,’ not ‘I think that I also’ 
(RV.). Other people may believe that their views are inspired, 
but the Apostle ventures also to believe that he is guided in his 
judgment by God’s Spirit. It seems to be clear from this that 
some of those who differed from him appealed to their spiritual 
illumination. See Goudge, p. 68; Stanley, pp. 117 f. ; Dobschiitz, 


p. 64. 


On the authority of B17, Aeth. and some other witnesses, WH. read 
ydp in preference to dé (RN ADEFGKLP, Latt. Copt.), placing 6é in 
the margin. A few texts have no conjunction. 

F G and some Latin texts (haheo or habeam) have éxw for éxeu. 

Alford remarks on ch. vii., ‘In hardly any portion of the Epistles has 
the hand of correctors and interpolators of the text been busier than here. 
The absence of all ascetic tendency from the Apostle’s advice, on the point 
where asceticism was busiest and most mischievous, was too strong a testi- 
mony against it to be left in its original clearness.” 


Saepe apostoli in epistolis de conjugio agunt: unus Paulus, 
semel, nec sua sponte, sed interrogatus, coelibatum suadet, idgue 
lenissime (Beng.). ‘These words are an excellent summary of the 


* Hermas seems to have vv. 39, 40, and 28 in his mind in A/and. Iv. iv. 1. 

+ Harnack disputes this (A/zssion and Expansion, i. p- 81). Tertullian 
(Ad Uxorem, ii. 1, 2) implies that marriages between Christians and heathen 
did take place. See Cyprian (7st. ili. 62); matrimonium cum gentilibus 
non jungendum. 


EE 


162 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VIII. 1-13 


teaching in this chapter as to the comparative value of marriage 
and celibacy: the preference given to celibacy is tentative and 
exceptional, to meet exceptional conditions. ‘No condemnation 
of marriage, no exclusion of the married from the highest bless- 
ings of the Christian life, finds a place in the N.T.” (Swete on 
Rev. xiv. 4, which he says ‘‘ must be taken metaphorically, as the 
symbolical character of the Book suggests.”) See also Goudge, 
pp. 63-65. 


VIII. 1-XI. 1. FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS. 
VIII. 1-3. General Principles. 


An idol represents nothing which really exists. Conse- 
quently, eating what ts offered to such a nonentity ts a matter 


of indifference: yet, in tenderness to the scruples of the weak, 
we ought to abstain from eating. 


1 Now, as to the subject of food that has been offered in 
sacrifice to idols, we are quite aware (as you say) that we all have 
knowledge ; we all are acquainted with the facts and understand 
them. But do not let us forget that knowledge may breed conceit, 
while it is love that builds up character. ?If any one imagines 
that he has acquired knowledge, he may be sure that he has 
not yet attained to the knowledge to which he ought to have 
attained. *But if any one has acquired love of God, this is 
the man who is known by God, and God’s recognition of him 
will not breed conceit. 4 Let us return then from these thoughts 
to the subject of eating the flesh of animals that have been sacri- 
ficed to idols. About that we are quite aware that there is no 
such thing in the world as the being that an idol stands for, and 
that there is no God but one. 5 For even if so-called gods do 
really exist,—if you like, in heaven, or, if you like, on earth; 
and, in fact, there are many such gods and many such lords,— 
§ nevertheless, for us there is but one God, who is the Source of 
all things and our Final End, and but one Lord, Jesus Christ, 
through whom the whole universe was made and through whom 
we were made anew. “Still, as I have intimated, we do not find 
in all men the knowledge to which you appeal. On the contrary, 
some of you, through being accustomed all their lives to look 
upon an idol as seal, partake of sacrificed meat as if it were a 
real sacrifice to a god, and their conscience, being too weak to 


VII. 1} FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 163 


guide them aright, is defiled with the consciousness of having 
done something which they feel to be wrong. But surely it is 
not food that will affect our relation to God: if we do not eat, 
_ we are none the worse in His sight, and if we do eat, we are 
none the better. °% Always take care, however, that this freedom 
of yours to do as you like about eating or not eating does not 
become an obstacle to the well-being of the weak. 1° For if any 
such person sees you, who have the necessary knowledge, not 
only eating this meat, but sitting and eating it in the court of the 
idol, will not the very fact of his weakness cause his conscience 
to be hardened—hardened into letting him eat what he still 
believes to be a sacrifice to an idol? 1! This must be wrong ; 
for it means bringing ruin to the weak man through your know- 
ledge—truin to the brother for whom Christ died. 1 But in thus 
sinning against your brethren, and in fact giving their conscience 
a blow which it is too weak to stand, ye are sinning against 
Christ. 1 Therefore, if what I eat puts a stumbling-block in my 
brother’s way, I will never eat meat again, so long as the world 
lasts, rather than put a stumbling-block in my brother’s way. 

1. Nepi 8€ tdv cidwdoOdTwy. St Paul is probably following the 
order of the Corinthians’ questions, but the connexion between 
this subject and the advisability of marriage (vii. 2-5, 9, 36) is 
close. Impurity and the worship of idols were closely allied 
(Rev. ii. 14, 20), especially at Corinth, and either evil might lead 
to the other (see Gray on Num. xxv. 1, 2). By ra eidwAd6ura is 
meant the flesh that was left over from heathen sacrifices. This 
was either eaten sacrificially, or taken home for private meals, 
or sold in the markets (4 Macc. v. 2; Acts xv. 29, xxi. 25; Rev. 
ii. 14, 20). In x. 28 we have tepd@urov, which, like Ged@uror, gives 
the heathen point of view.* 

oidaper. See Rom. ii. 2, iii. 19, and Evans on 1 Cor. viii. 1, 
additional note, p. 299. ‘The expression is frequent in Paul. 

mdvtes yvaou €xouev. Perhaps a quotation, made with gentle 
irony, from the Corinthians’ letter. See Moffatt, Zit, of MV. T7., 
p. 112. They had claimed enlightenment—so dear to Greeks— 
on this subject of the true nature of idol-worship. ‘They knew 
now that there were no gods ; the worship of them was a nullity. 
The Apostle does not dispute that, but enlightenment is not 
everything: and in the gift which is better than enlightenment 
the Corinthians are lacking. Some commentators take wdytes 
to mean all Christians, which has point. It can hardly mean 


* In Aristoph. Aves 1265, mortals are forbidden to send lepd@vrov xamvér 
to the gods through the air which belongs to the birds. 


164 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIII 1 


the Apostle and all who are similarly illuminated: he is urging 
that knowledge is not the prerogative of a privileged few. 

H yr@ors guovot. Enlightenment is not merely insufficient for 
solving these questions; unless it is accompanied by love, it is 
likely to generate pride. While love builds up, mere knowledge 
puffs up. Thus in Col. ii. 18 (the only place outside 1 Cor. in 
which the verb occurs) we have, eikj pvowvpevos iro Tod vods 
ts gapxkés. The Apostle once more glances at the inflated 
self-complacency which was so common at Corinth (iv. 6, 18, 
1g, Vv. 2). ‘Puffed up’ is just what ayday is not (xiii. 4). Cf. 
tupdopat, t Tim, ili. 6, vi. 4; 2 Tim. ill. 4. 2st genus scientiae, quo 
homines tumescunt ; quae quia charitate non est condita, ideo inftat. 
Llle qui putat se scire, propterea quia tntelligit omnia lictta, et non 
inguinare quod in nos intrat (Matt. xv. 11, 20), dum ad scandalum 
Jratris lictta sumit, nondum cognovit quemadmodum oporteat eum 
scire (Atto). Loving consideration for the weakness of others 
buttresses them, and strengthens the whole edifice of the 
Church (Rom. xiv. 15). Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, 
Pp. 257- 

¥) 5€ dydmy oikodopet. For the first time in this letter St Paul 
uses this verb: but oikodouy occurs iil. g and ézocxodopety iii. ro. 
The earliest use of it in his writings is 1 Thess. v. 11, where he 
charges the Thessalonians to ‘build up each the other,’ and it 
becomes one of his favourite metaphors, especially in this Epistle 
(v. 10, X. 23, XIV. 4, 17), With oixodouy still more frequent. It is 
possible that our Lord’s use of the metaphor of building up His 
Church (Matt. xvi. 18) may have suggested it to the Apostle ; but 
it is a natural metaphor for any one to use. We find it in Acts 
IX. 31, XX. 32; 1 Pet. ii. 5; Jude 20; cf. Acts iv. 11. It is used 
of building up individuals, building up a society, and building 
up individuals to form a society (Hort on 1 Pet. ii. 5).* The 
metaphor is elaborately worked out Eph. ii. 20, 21; cf. 1 Cor. 
iii. 10-14. Jeremiah was set apart from his birth dvoucodopetv 
kai xatapurevey (Jer. i, 103 cf. xviii. 9, xxiv. 6; Ecclus. xlix. 7). 
In the hymn in praise of dydy (xiii.) this characteristic is not 
mentioned. Cf. Aristotle (Z¢h. Vic. 1. iii. 6), 7d TéAos €oriv od 
yao GAAQ rpakis: (IL. il. 1) ) wapodoa mpaypareia ov Bewpias 
&vexd é€otw... GAN iy dyaboi yevopeba: also x. ix. 1. See 
Butler's “Thirdly” in the Sermon on the Ignorance of Man. 
On a see Deissmann, Lrble Studies, pp. 198f.; Lighé, 
p. 18. 


; * In Spencer and other contemporary and earlier writers, ‘ edify’ and 
edification are used in their original sense of constructing buildings. See 
Church on Faery Queene, 1. i. 34, and Wright, Azble Word-Book, p. 219. 


It is found as late as 1670, ‘the re-edifying Layton Church” (Izaac Walton 
Life of G. Herbert, sub fin.). i ; 


VIII. 1-3] FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 165 


The punctuation of Griesbach, Bengel, etc., ofdauev* 8rt, ‘Now about 
things offered we know; because we all have knowledge,’ is intolerably 
harsh. It would be almost impossible in v. 4, and olSamev érc in the two 
places are evidently parallel. Lachmann conjectured that the original 
reading was oldapuev d7t ob mavres x.T.X. See Alford. 

St Bernard (/7 Cantica, xxxvi. 3) quotes Persius (i. 27), Sccre tuum 
nihil est, nist te sctre hoc scrat alter, in commenting on this passage, and re- 
marks: Sznt gud sctre volunt, ut sctantur tpsi; et turpis vanitas est. Et 
sunt gut scire volunt, ut sctentiam suam vendant ; et turpis guaestus est. 
Sed sunt quogue qui scire volunt ut aedificent ; et charitas est. 


2. ei tig Boxet. ‘If any one fancies (existimat, Vulg. ; sidi 
videtur, Beza) that he knows anything.’ The Corinthians fancied 
that they knew ; éyvwxevas (perf.) that they had acquired know- 
ledge, and that the knowledge was complete. If they had had 
more real knowledge they would have been less confident. It 
is the man of superficial knowledge that is ready to solve all 
questions ; and this readiness is evidence of want of real know- 
ledge, for it shows that he does not know how ignorant he is. 
Cf. iii. 18, xi. 16; 1 Tim.i. 7. In ovzw there is no reference 
to a future life. 


3. «i 8€ 1g dyawa. This is the sure test, love; and love of 
the highest of all objects, which is the highest form of love,— 
the love of Love Itself. This is a very different thing from 
thinking that one knows something. 

obtos éyywotat bw adtod. ‘The sentence is ambiguous in 
grammar, for either pronoun may refer to the man, and either 
to God ; but there is no reasonable doubt that otros is the man, 
who is recognized and acknowledged by God as His. Ina 
special sense, ‘The Lord knoweth them that are His’ (2 Tim. 
ib 195.b 5.3.6; Nahum... 7; Jer. 1.5 ; Isa.xlige jae momioses 
He said, ‘I know thee by name,’ Oida oe rapa rdvras (Exod. 
Xxxilil, 12, 17). It is in this sense that the man who loves God 
is known by God. We might have expected the Apostle to say, 
either, ‘He who knows God is known by Him’ (Gal. iv. 9), or 
‘He who loves God is loved by Him’ (1 John iv. 19): but the 
combination of the two verbs is more telling, and more to his 
purpose. One who in this special sense is known by God may 
safely be assumed to possess what may rightly be called yvaots 
and not something which merely generates pride. He has the 
highest recognition of all in being known by God, and is not 
eager to show off in order to gain the recognition of men. //e 
veram habet scientiam qui Deum diligit; et qui diligit Deum, 
Jratris, ut suam, diligit salvationem (Atto). Consequently, the 
man who loves God is the one who can rightly solve the question 
about food offered to idols. What effect will his partaking of 
it have on his fellow-Christian’s progress in holiness ? 


166 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIII 4 


4. Nepi tis Bpwoews odv. After these preliminary considera- 
tions (vv. 1-3), which indicate the direction in which a solution 
of the question is likely to be found, he returns with a resump- 
tive oty (Gal. iii. 5) to the question mentioned in z. 1, and states 
it more definitely. We now learn that it was respecting the 
lawfulness of eating what had been offered to idols that the 
Corinthians wanted to have his decision. It was a question of 
very frequent occurrence. In private sacrifices certain portions 
of the animal were the perquisite of the priests, but nearly all 
the rest might be taken away by the offerer, to be eaten at home 
or sold. In public sacrifices made by the state the skins and 
carcases, which at Athens sometimes amounted to hundreds, 
were an important source of revenue and patronage, the skins 
being sold for the state (ro Sepyarixdv), and the flesh being 
distributed to magistrates and others, who would sell what they 
did not need for home consumption. Smith, Dict. of Grk. and 
Rom. Ant. i. p. 585. In the markets and in private houses 
eidwAdura were constantly to be found. 

oiSapev. Here again he seems to be quoting from the 
Corinthian letter; ‘What you say about the nullity of idols is 
quite true, but it does not settle the matter.’ Cf. 1 Tim. 1. 8. 

Ste obSev eidwrov . . . StL oddels Oeds. These two clauses 
are parallel, and they should be translated in a similar way ; 
and, as ovde’s cannot be the predicate, otdey is not the predicate, 
although most versions take it so (guia nihil est idolum in mundo, 
Vulg.; dass etn Gotze nichts in der Welt set, Luth.). Either, 
‘that there is no idol in the world, and that there is no God 
but one,’ or ‘that nothing in the world is an idol, and that no 
being is God except one,’ is probably right, and the former is 
far better: cf. Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19. An idol professes 
to be an image of a god, not of the only God, and such a thing 
does not, and cannot, exist, for you cannot represent what has 
no existence. If there is no Zeus, an eldwAov of Zeus is an 
impossibility. It represents ‘a no-god’ (see Driver on Deut. 
XXXll. 17, 21), and the maker of it érAacey airo ydvevpa, dav- 
tagiav Wevdn (Hab. ii. 18). This is what is meant by ‘they ate 
the sacrifices of the dead’ (Ps. cvi. 28; cf. cxv. 4-8, cxxxv. 
15-18), deaf and dumb idols (xii. 2) in contrast to the living 
God. They are called vexpot, Wisd. xiii. to, xv. 17. Jews 
regarded them as ‘nothing’ (avem), mere ‘lies’ (e/i/im). 

With é€v xéouw here compare Rom. v. 13. In the ordered 
universe there can be only one God, viz., the God who 
made it. 


D°E 17, Vulg. read wept 5é ris Bpdoews without ody. D* has repli dé 
Tis yrwooews, and P 121, wepi ris yrwoews ody. After ovdels Beds, NK L, 
Syrr. add érepos, asin AV. None of these readings is likely to be right. 


VIII. 5, 6] FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 167 


5. kat yap eiwep x.t.A. ‘For even granted that there are so- 
called gods, whether in heaven or upon earth, just as there are 
gods many and lords many.’ Here eizep cioiv and dozep ciciv 
are correlative, and eictv must be taken in the same sense in 
both clauses. If both refer to what really exists, the meaning 
will be, ‘If you like to say that, because there are super- 
natural beings in abundance, as we all believe, therefore the 
so-called gods of the heathen really exist, nevertheless for us 
Christians there is only one God.’* If both refer to heathen 
superstition, the meaning will be, ‘Granted that there are so- 
called gods, as there are—plenty of them ; still for us,’ etc. He 
seems to mean that fo the worshippers the idol zs an object 
of adoration; so that, while actually they worship a nonentity, 
ethically they are worshippers of dawova (x. 20). Jehovah is 
God of gods and Lord of lords (Deut. x. 17; Ps. cxxxvi. 2, 3), 
and therefore the second etsiv probably refers to actual existence. 
Moreover, St Paul, while denying that the heathen gods existed 
(see Lightfoot on Gal. iv. 8), yet held that heathen sacrifices 
were offered to beings that do exist (x. 19-21); there were 
supernatural powers behind the idols, although not the gods 
which the idols represented. It is perhaps too much to say 
that eizep, which in N.T. is peculiar to St Paul (2 Thess. 1. 6; 
Rom. iii. 30, viii. 9, 17), is used of what the writer holds to 
be true or probable, yet it certainly does not imply that the 
hypothesis is improbable: ‘granted that’ is the meaning. See 
Sanday and Headlam, p. 96; Thackeray, p. 144. ‘ Whether in 
heaven or on earth’ gives the two main divisions of the koopos 
in v. 4. Dicuntur dit in caelo, ut sol, luna et varia sidera ; in 
terra, imago Jovis, Mercurii atque Herculis (Atto). More pro- 
bably the latter are the heavenly, while the earthly are the 
nymphs, fauns, etc. See Stanley’s notes on this verse. 


6. add’ Hpiv els Ocds 6 TatTHp. ‘Nevertheless (whatever may 
the truth about these), for us believers (emphatically) there is 
one God, the Father, from whom come all things, while we tend 
towards Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all 
things, we also through Him.+ There are two parallel triplets ; 
Geot oAXol, els Oeds, Ta TavTa : KUptot toAAol, els Kupuos, Ta 
mdvra. The one God is compared on the one side with many 
gods, on the other with the sum total of the universe: so also 
the one Lord. The comparison results in opposition in the one 
case, in harmony in the other. The zodAo/ are intolerable rivals 

* Ouocungue te flexeris, thi illum videbis occurrentem tibi ; nihil ab illo 
vacat, opus suum ipse implet (Seneca, De Benef. ww. 8; compare M. Aurelius, 
xii. 28 ; Xen. A/em. IV. iii. 13). There is a close parallel in 1 Tim. ii. 5. 

{ With elep . . . adda here compare éav... adda iniv. 15. The context 
implies ‘ on/y one God.’ See Deissmann, Mew Light on the N.T. p. 81. 


168 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VIII 6, 7 


to the els @eds and eis Kivpios : ra rdvra are welcome creatures. 
The jpeis, like the previous jpiv, means ‘we Christians.’ Bruta 
animalia et infideles homines in terram curvantur et terrena quae- 
runt ;* nos vero per fidem et desiderium tendimus in eum a quo 
descendimus (Herv.). God is the central Fount and the central 
Goal: all beings proceed from the former; only believers 
consciously work towards the latter. See Resch, Agrapha, 
), 129. 

In the case of Jesus Christ we have the same preposition 
(dia c. gen.) with both ra wdvra and jpeis.¢ But 6d: od does 
not refer to the same fact as 6 avrot. The former points to 
the Son’s work in creation, the latter to His work in the new 
creation of mankind. ‘If any man is in Christ there is a new 
creation’ (2 Cor. v. 17; see Lightfoot on Gal. vi. 15). “This 
verse contains the earliest statement in the N.T. as to the work 
of our Lord in creation. ‘This is stated more fully in Col. i. 
16-18. There, as here, the work of our Lord in creation and 
His work for the Church are spoken of together” (Goudge). 
Per quem creati sumus ut essemus, per ipsum recreati sumus ut 
unum Deum tintelligeremus, atqgue tdolum nthil esse recognos- 
ceremus (Atto). The statement is clear evidence of the Apostle’s 
belief in the pre-existence of Christ ; see on x. 4, where we have 
similar evidence. Schmiedel remarks that Paul nowhere else 
ascribes to Christ a share in the work of creation; but, as he 
frequently teaches the pre-existence, it is not going much further 
to ascribe to Him this work. Wace & Schaff, icene Library, 
IV. Athanasius, p. \xxi. n.; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent 
Research, p. 131; J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, p. 64; Weinel, 
St Paul, p. 45. 


B, Fay. omit d\N before quiv. N* omits Geds. B, Aeth. have 6: év 
for 6¢ od, 


7. ANN otk év réow  yvdors. ‘But not in all people is 
there the knowledge’ which is necessary for eating idol-meats 
without harm. They do not know the principle on which the 
more enlightened do this. on omnes sciunt quod propter con- 
templum hoc faciatis, sed putant vos propter venerationem hoc 
Jacere (Primasius); and they know that any veneration of an 
idol must be wrong. There is perhaps a difference intended 

_ * But the unbelieving heathen must not be wholly excluded from the els 
avrév. While the Jew was being drawn by a special revelation through the 
Prophets towards God, the Gentile was groping his way in a general revelation 
through the order of Nature towards Him, till the course of both was com- 
pleted by the revelation in Christ (Gwatkin, Zarly Church History, p. 15). 

+ The AV. is very inaccurate, translating els ‘in’ instead of ‘unto,’ and 


did ‘by’ instead of ‘through.’ B, W, Bacon regards vv. 6 and 8 as quotations 
from the Corinthians’ letter. 


VIII. 7} FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 169 


between having knowledge (v. 1) and its being 7” them as an 
effective and illuminating principle. 

tives S€ TH guna Ews aptr tod eiSddov. To take fws dpri 
with éo@iovew, ‘continue the practice of eating such food even 
until now,’ simplifies the translation, but it is not correct: rH o. 
€ws dptu t. id. is all one expression, in which éws dpru (iv. 13, 
xv. 6) qualifies t7 o. It is the force of habit which lasts even 
until now. They have been so accustomed to regard an idol 
as a reality, as representing a god that exists, that even now, 
in spite of their conversion, they cannot get rid of the feeling 
that, by eating food which has been offered to an idol, they 
are taking part in the worship of heathen gods; they cannot 
eat €k miorews (Rom. xiv. 23). Consequently, when the example 
of other Christians encourages them to eat meat of this kind, 
they do what they feel to be wrong. ‘But some, through the 
force of habit which still clings to them respecting the idol, eat 
the meat as being an idol sacrifice.’ Missionaries at the present 
day have similar experiences. A _ belief in witchcraft long con- 
tinues to lurk in otherwise well-instructed Christians, and 
(against their reason and their conscience) they allow them- 
selves to be influenced by it. Note the emphasis on 79 ovvybeta 
€ws aptt, and compare the datives in Gal. vi. 12 and Rom. xi. 31. 

kal ) guvetSnors adTav dobevis odoa podtverar. ‘And so their 
conscience, being weak, is defiled.’ It is defiled, not by the 
partaking of polluted food, for food cannot pollute (Mark vii. 
18, 19; Luke xi. 41), but by the doing of something which the 
unenlightened conscience does not allow. Cf. 2 Cor. vii 1. An 
uninstructed conscience may condemn what is not wrong, or allow 
what is; but even in such cases it ought to be obeyed. See notes 
on Rom. xiv. 23. It is not quite clear what is meant by doGevjs. 
It may mean ‘too weak to resist the temptation of following 
the example of others,’ or ‘weak through being unilluminated.’ * 
In either case it is defiled by a consciousness of guilt. The 
man feels that he is doing what is wrong; and, until he knows 
the real merits of the case, he is doing what is wrong. For 
ouvnbeia see xi. 16; John xviil. 39; 4 Mac. il, 12 (6 yap vopos 
Kal THS pidwy auvybeias deordLe, d.a trovnplas adbrovs eeAeyywr), 
vi. 13, xiii. 22, 27; and for ovveidyors see notes on Rom. ii. 15 
and Westcott on Heb. ix. 9, p. 293: ovveidnows is rare in LXX, 
frequent in the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. See Hastings, 

* Perhaps xi. 30 indicates that do0evjs here means ‘unhealthy,’ ‘ morbid,’ 
and so ‘incapable of healthy action’: cf. Luke x. 9; Acts v. 15. Words 
signifying weakness of body easily become used of mental and moral weak- 
ness. A healthy conscience would not be uneasy about eating such food, 
and eating would then cause no defilement. In Ecclus. xxi. 28 the slanderer 
hodtver Thy éavTod puxiv: in blackening his neighbour's character he violates 
and blackens his own conscience. 


170 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | VIII. 7,8 


DB. 1. pp. 468f. The ‘weakness’ consists in giving moral 
value to things that are morally indifferent. That must lessen 
the power of conscience. 

auvndeig (N" ABP 17, Copt. Aeth.) is to be preferred to cuvecdjoec 
N88 DEFGL, Vulg. Arm.), and éws dpre should precede rod eléaéXov 
NBDEFG, Latt.), not follow it (ALP). ‘With conscience of the 
idol’ (AV.) is hardly intelligible, and ‘ with consciousness of the idol’ is 
not much better. If cuvecdjoee be adopted, we must expand the meaning ; 
‘with the scruple of conscience which they feel about the idol’ (Evans). 

8. Bpdpa Sé ipas of mapactyce: TO OeG. ‘Commend’ (AV., 
RV.) is perhaps a trifle too definite for rapiornye: ‘present’ is 
accurate, meaning ‘present for approbation or condemnation.’ 
In this passage the Apostle probably had approbation chiefly 
in his mind, but in what follows both alternatives are given. 
Food will not bring us into any relation, good or bad, with God: 
it will have no effect on the estimate which He will form respect- 
ing us, or on the judgment which He will pronounce upon us. 
It is not one of the things which we shall have to answer for 
(Rom. xiv. 17). It is the clean heart, and not clean food, that will 
matter; and the weak brother confounds the two. ‘The question 
of tense (see small print below) is important. The future can 
hardly refer to anything but the Day of Judgment. For the 
verb cf. Rom. vi. 13, xiv. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 14. The translation 
‘commend’ obscures the reference to a judgment to come: 
‘will not affect our standing before God’ is right. 

oUte é€dv ph gdywpev, GotepodpeOa. ‘If we abstain from 
eating we are not prejudiced (in God’s sight), and if we eat 
we have no advantage.’ We lose nothing by refraining from 
using our liberty in this matter, and we gain nothing by 
exercising it. Others explain torepovpefa of being inferior to 
the man who does not abstain, and zepeooevonev of being 
superior to the man who does abstain. This explanation is 
somewhat superficial and loses all connexion with the preceding 
sentence. Almost certainly 7r@ @ed is to be understood in both 
clauses. See Alexander, Zhe Ethics of St Paul, p. 239. 

For judas the evidence is overwhelming, but N* 17, 37 read buds. The 
two words are often confused in MSS. mapacrjcee (NS A B 17, Copt.) is 
to be preferred to rapiornot (N° DELP, Latt.). The ydp after the first 
ore (DEF GLP, Vulg-Clem.) should be omitted (% A B 17, Am. Copt. 
Arm. Aeth.). And probably ofre éav uh ¢., bor. should precede ore éay 
¢., wep. (A* B, Am. Copt. Arm.) rather than vice versa (RX DF LP, Syrr. ). 
The interchange of the verbs, éav wy @., Tep., obre éav o., dor. (A? 17), 
is not likely to be right, although adopted by Lachm. The interchange 
of the clauses was a natural correction, in order to put the positive before 
the negative hypothesis. The Apostle puts the negative first, because that 
is the course which he recommends ; ‘If we do not eat, although we may, 
we are in no worse position before God.’ The form sepiccevoueba 


(B, Orig.), adopted by the Revisers, is probably a mechanical assimilation 
to iorepovmeda. 


VIII. 9, 10] FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 171 


9. Bdérete S€ py Twos H efouoia budv. ‘Take heed, however, 
lest this liberty of yours prove a stumbling-block to the weak.’ 
It is lawful for those whose consciences are enlightened to do 
as they like about it (éfovevay as in vii. 37, ix. 4, and as ééeorw 
in vi. 12); their eating will not do ¢kem any harm. But it may 
do harm to ofhers, and thus may bring the eaters into a worse 
position before God. See notes on Rom. xiv. 13, 20: excepting 
the quotation in 1 Pet. i. 8, tpooxoypa in N.T. is confined to 
this passage and Romans; in LXX it is not rare. It is that 
against which the man with weak sight stumbles; it is no 
obstacle to the man who sees his way; but the weak-sighted 
must be considered.* 


dobevéiow (NABD EF, etc.), as in v 7 ; doOévovow (L, Chrys. Thdrt.) 
perhaps from v. 11. P has quar. 


10. év eiSwdiw Katakeipevov. In order to show how the 
offendiculum (Vulg.) arises, he takes an extreme case. A Cor- 
inthian, in a spirit of bravado, to show his superior enlightenment 
and the wide scope of his Christian freedom, not only partakes 
of idol-meats, but does so at a sacrificial banquet within the 
precincts of the idol-temple. This was fer se idolatrous; but 
St Paul holds the more severe condemnation in reserve: see on 
x. 14f.f The rov €xyovra yvOow may mean either that this is the 
man’s own belief about himself, or that it is the weak brother’s 
opinion of him. EidwAvov, vocabulum aptum ad deterrendum 
(Beng.), is not classical: in LXX it occurs 1 Esdr. ii. 10; Bel rr; 
1 Mac. i. 47 (v.4 eidwAa), x. 83; and in 1 Sam. xxxi. 10 we have 
the analogous ’Aorapretor, like “AvoAAwvetov, Tooedwvetov, etc. { 
Such words are frequent in papyri. 

doevois dvtos. ‘Seeing that he is weak.’ It is just because 
he is feeble in insight and character that this following of a 
questionable example ‘builds up’ his conscience in a disastrous 


* “The stronger one can, for the sake of the weaker, refrain from using 
this liberty ; but the weaker cannot, on account of his conscience, follow the 
example of the stronger” (B. Weiss). 

+ Grenfell and Hunt (Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 1. p. 177) give an invitation 
to sup at the «Alyy of the Lord Serapis in the Serapeium, There is another 
invitation to a meal in honour of Serapis in a private house. See Bach- 
mann, p. 307; also Deissmann, Light, p. 355. 

t It is possible that St Paul used the unusual word eldwdov, because he 
was unwilling to put words with such sacred associations as lepov or vads to 
any such use (Edwards). But eléwov (v. 4) suggests ef6édcov, and no other 
word would have expressed the meaning so clearly. It is also possible that 
oikodounOjocerac (a strange word in this connexion) is a sarcastic quotation 
of a Corinthian expression. Perhaps they talked of ‘edifying’ the weak 
brethren by showing them to what lengths they could go. This was 
‘educating their consciences,” but it was a runosa aedtficatio (Calv.). The 
best MSS. have eldwXiy, not eldwrely: compare ddvov, Matt. xviii. 27. In 
Luke x. 34, 7avd0x.0v is well attested. : 


172 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ VIII. 10-12 


way. His conscience is not sufficiently instructed to tell him 
that he may eat without scruple, and yet he eats. Doing 
violence to scruples is no true edification: it is rather a pulling 
down of bulwarks. Tertullian seems to have had this passage 
in his mind when he says of those who are seduced into heresy ; 
Solent quidem isti infirmiores aedificart tn ruinam (De Praeser. 
HTaer. 3). Atto paraphrases ; provocabitur manducare tdolothyta, 
non tamen ca fide qua tu. It is rutnosa aedtficatio, quae in sana 
doctrina fundata non est (Calv.). 


The cé before rév éxovra is omitted by BF G, Vulg. Some editors 
bracket it, but it is well attested (RA DELP, Syrr. Copt. Arm). 
ddoronAycerat is an insipid conjecture for oixodoynAyoera, which is 
deliberately chosen with gentle irony, and needs no mending. 


11. awéAdutar yap 6 dobevav ev t. o. yv. ‘For it is destruc- 
tion that he who is weak finds in thy knowledge.’ Ruin, and 
not building up, is what he is getting by following the example 
of one who is better instructed than himself. There is the 
tragedy of it; that the illumination of one Corinthian is pre- 
cisely the field in which another Corinthian takes the road to 
ruin. And the tragedy reaches a climax in the fact that the 
one who is led astray is the brother in Christ of him who leads 
him astray, and is one whom Christ died to save from ruin. 
The last clause could hardly be more forcible in its appeal ; 
every word tells; ‘the brother,’ not a mere stranger; ‘for the 
sake of whom,’ precisely to rescue him from destruction; 
‘Christ,’ no less than He; ‘died,’ no less than that: cf. Rom. 
xiv. 15. Zw eris occasio mortis ejus propter quem Christus, ut 
redimeret, mortuus est (Herv.). See Matt. xviii. 6. 


aro\. yap (X* B 17, Copt. Goth.) is to be preferred to kai droX. 
(8! D*, de) or don, ofv (A P 39). “And xai droXeirat, though well sup- 
ported (D?EF GL, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.), looks like a correction to 
assimilate the tense with olxodoyn@joera and carry on the question through 
v. 11. The question ends at éo@iew, and what follows is explanation. 
The emphatic position of dadéAAvrat, and also the tense, have force; it 
is ms less than destruction that results, and the destruction is already at 
work. 


12. odtws 8€ duaptdvovtes eis tols a8. ‘But by sinning 
against your brothers in such a way as this’: ovrws is emphatic. 
This verse confirms the view that eis 7. (8. cpa dwapr. (vi. 18) 
must mean ‘sins against his own body.’ 

_ kal tUmrovres. ‘ And by inflicting blows upon their conscience 
in its weakness.’ The cad makes the djaprdvovres more definite, 
by showing the kind of injury. The force of the present 
participles should be noted: the wounding is a continued pro- 
cess, and so also is the weakliness; not doOevy, but doGevodcav. 
Nowhere else in N.T. is t¥rtw used in a metaphorical sense : 


VIII, 12, 13] FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 173 


elsewhere only in the Synoptists and Acts. But this sense occurs 
in LXX (1 Sam. i. 8; Prov. xxvi. 22; Dan. xi. 20). ‘ Wounding’ 
and ‘weakening’ are in emphatic contrast: what requires the 
tenderest handling is brutally treated, so that its sensibility is 
numbed. The wounding is not the shock which the weak 
Christian receives at seeing a fellow-Christian eating idol-meats 
in an idol-court, but the inducement to do the like, although he 
believes it to be wrong. His conscience is lamed by being 
crushed. This is the third metaphor used respecting the weak 
conscience ; it is soiled (zv. 7), made to stumble (v. 9), wounded 
(v. 12). The order of the words is a climax; ‘inflicting blows, 
not on the back, but on the conscience, and on the conscience 
when it is in a weakly state.’ 

eis Xpiotov dp. Like ovtws and rimrovtes, eis Xp. is emphatic 
by positipn: ‘it is against Christ that ye are sinning.’ St Paul 
may have known the parable of the Sheep and the Goats 
(Matt. xxv. 40, 45), but Christ Himself had taught him that an 
injury to the brethren was an injury to Himself (Acts ix. 4, 5). 

18. S.dmep. ‘For this very reason,’ ze. to avoid sinning 
against Christ ; the zép strengthens the 6.0: here and x. 14 only, 
in N.T. See 2 Mac. v. 20, vi. 27. 

et BpGpa x«.t.A. ‘If food causes my brother to stumble, I will 
certainly never eat flesh again for evermore, that I may not make 
my brother to stumble.’ The declaration is conditional. If the 
Apostle knows of definite cases in which his eating food will lead 
to others being encouraged to violate the dictates of conscience, 
then certainly he will never eat meat so long as there is real 
danger of this (x. 28, 29). But if he knows of no such danger, 
he will use his Christian freedom and eat without scruple 
(x. 25-27). He does not, of course, mean that the whole practice 
of Christians is to be regulated with a view to the possible 
scrupulousness of the narrow-minded. That would be to sacrifice 
our divinely given liberty (2 Cor. iii. 17) to the ignorant pre- 
judices of bigots. The circumstances of this or that Christian 
may be such that it is his duty to abstain from intoxicants, 
although he is never tempted to drink to excess ; but Christians 
in general are bound by no such rule, and it would be tyranny 
to try to impose such a rule. 

The change from Bpépa to xpéa is natural enough. If such 
a thing as food (which is always a matter of indifference) 
causes . . . I will never again eat flesh (which is in question 
here),’ etc. Note how he harps on ddeAdos. 

In dealing with both the question of fornication and that of 
eating idol-meats, the Apostle brings the solution ultimately from 
our relation to Christ. Fornication is taking from Christ what 
is His property and giving it toa harlot. Reckless eating of idol- 


174 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 1-27 


meats is an injury inflicted on Christ. In neither case does he 
appeal to the decree of the Apostles at the conference in Jerusalem 
(Acts xv. 20, 29). The principles to which he appeals were far 
more cogent, especially for Greeks.* Compare carefully Rom. 
Se. 44,/27, 21. 


In his recent (1908) paper on the Apostolic Decree (Acts xv. 20-29), 
Dr. Sanday says; ‘‘ The decree was only addressed in the first instance to a 
limited area: and I can well believe that it soon fell into comparative disuse 
even within that area. It is true that, as we read it in the Acts, the decree 
has the appearance of a very authoritative document. Something of this 
appearance may be due to a mistaken estimate on the part of St Luke him- 
self. But, even so, we are apt to read into it more than it really means. 
For the moment the decree had a real significance: it meant a united 
Christendom, instead of a disunited. Many an official document has had 
a temporary success of this kind, which the course of events has soon 
caused to become a dead letter. That was really the fate of the decree. 
The tide of events ebbed away from it, and it was left on ghe beach 
stranded and lifeless—lifeless at least for the larger half of the Church, for 
that Gentile Church which soon began to advance by leaps and bounds.” 

‘© As to any further difficulty from St Paul’s treatment of meats offered 
in sacrifice to idols, I confess that I think little of it. He could upon 
occasion become a Jew to the Jews. But the decree, we may be sure, 
made no impression upon his mind. It ‘‘contributed nothing” to his 
Gospel. It was no outcome of his religious principles. It was just a 
practical concordat, valid in certain specified regions and under certain 
definite conditions. But when he was altogether outside these, among his 
own converts, he dealt with them by his own methods, and without any 
thought of the authorities at Jerusalem.” 

The inference, from St Paul’s silence, that Acts xv. belongs to a period 
later than this Epistle, is quite untenable. 


IX. 1-27. THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE. 


I have not asked you to forego more rights than I forego 
myself. For the sake of others I surrender, not only what 
any Christian may claim, but what I can claim as an 
Apostle. 


1Can it be denied that I am a free agent, that I have the 
authority and independence of an Apostle? I have seen our 
Lord face to face and He made me His Apostle, and you who 
were won over to Him through me are a standing proof of my 
Apostleship. ?It may be possible for other Christians to 
question whether I am an Apostle or not, but you at least 
cannot do so, for your very existence as a Christian Church is 
the seal which authenticates my Apostleship. ®There you have 
my answer to those who challenge my claim. 

* See Gwatkin, Early Church History, i. 57, 63- 


IO. <- 1-27 | GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 175 


*Surely we are free to do as we think best about eating and 
drinking at the cost of the Churches, ®to do as we think best 
about taking with us on our journey a Christian sister as a wife, 
as also the rest of the Apostles do, and the brethren of the 
Lord, and Peter. ®Or is it only I and Barnabas that are not 
free to do as we think best about working no longer for a living ? 
™No soldier on service finds his own outfit and rations. If you 
plant a vineyard, you expect to partake of the produce, and if 
you tend cattle, you expect to get a share of the milk. 

SI am not saying all this merely from a worldly point of 
view. * The Divine Law assumes just the same principle. In 
the Law of Moses it stands written, Thou shalt not muzzle the 
ox while it is treading out the grain. Do you think that it was 
merely out of consideration for the oxen that God caused that to 
be written? 1°Surely He was looking beyond them, and it is 
really for us preachers that He says this. No doubt it was in 
our interest that this law was enacted; because thus the 
principle is laid down that the plougher ought not to plough, and 
the thresher ought not to thresh, without a good prospect of 
sharing in the profit. 1 Well then, if it is we who in your 
hearts sowed the seeds of spiritual life, is it a very outrageous 
thing that we out of your purses shall reap some worldly benefit ? 
12 Tf others get their share of this right of maintenance from you, 
have not we who taught you first a still better right? Neverthe- 
less, we did not avail ourselves of this right. On the contrary, 
we put up with every kind of privation, rather than cause the 
spread of the Glad-tidings of Christ to be in any way hampered. 
13Of course you know that those who are engaged in the 
temple-services are maintained out of the temple-funds; those 
who serve at the altar share the sacrifices with the altar. On 
the same principle the Lord directed that those who proclaim the 
Glad-tidings should out of this work get enough to live on. 
16 But I have availed myself of none of these pleas. 

Now do not think that I write all this in order that the 
maintenance due to preachers should henceforth be granted in 
my case. Indeed not; for it would be better for me by far to 
die than submit to that: no one shall make void my glorying in 
taking nothing for my work. 1¢It is quite true that I do preach 
the Glad-tidings ; but there is no glorying about that: it is a 
duty which I must perform,—must, because it will be the worse 


176 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 1-27 


for me if I do not perform it. 1! If I did this spontaneously, I 
should have my pay: but seeing that I do it because I must, it 
is a stewardship which has been entrusted to me. 18 What pay 
then do I get? Why, the pleasure of being a preacher who gives 
the Glad-tidings free of charge, so as not to use to the full a 
preacher’s right to maintenance. 

19So far from claiming my full rights, I submit to great 
curtailments. For, free and independent though I am from all 
men, yet I made myself all men’s slave, in order that I might 
win more of them. 2° Thus to the Jews I became as a Jew, that 
I might win Jews. That means that to those under the Mosaic 
Law I became like one of themselves (although, of course, I am 
nothing of the kind), that I might win those under the Law. 
21 To the Gentiles who are free from the Law I became like one 
of them (although, of course, I am not free from God’s law; on 
the contrary, I am under Christ’s law), that I might win those 
who are free from the Law. ?? To the men of tender scruples 
I became like one of them, that I might win such people as 
these. In short, to all kinds of men I have assumed all kinds of 
characters, in order at all costs to save some. * But all this 
variety I practise for one and the same reason, that I may not 
keep the Gospel to myself but share its blessings with others. 

24 You know that the competitors in a race all run, but only 
one gets the prize. *5 You must run like him, so as to secure it. 
Now, every one that competes in the games is in all directions 
temperate. They verily aim at winning a perishable crown, but 
we one that is imperishable. ?° I accordingly so run as being in 
no doubt about my aim; I so fight as not wasting blows on the 
air. *’ Far from it; I direct heavy blows against my body, and 
force it to be my slave, lest my preaching to others should end 
in My Own rejection. 

It is a mistake to regard this chapter as an independent 
section in defence of the writer’s claim to be an Apostle. It is 
part of the discussion of the question as to eating food that has 
been offered to idols, in the midst of which it is inserted. 
Christians may eat such f6od, without fear of pollution; but in 
doing so they may harm other Christians: therefore, where there 
is risk of harming others, they should forbear. To show that 
this forbearance ought not to seem hard, he points out that his 
habitual forbearance is greater than that which he would 


IX. 1] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE MW 7 


occasionally claim from them. As in vi. 1, he begins with 
animated questions. The conjecture that ix. 1-x. 22 is part of 
the letter mentioned in v. 9 is not probable. 


1. Odk eipl EXedBepos ; dk eipt ditdatodos ; This is the order of 
the questions in the best texts (see below). ‘Have I not the 
freedom of a Christian? Have I not the rights of an Apostle ?’ 
Logically, this is the better order; but even if it were not, the 
evidence for it is too strong to be set aside on such grounds, It 
is the thought that he forbears to claim, not only what any 
Christian may claim, but also the exceptional claims of an 
Apostle, that makes him digress on an explanation of what an 
Apostle may claim. In z. 19 he glances back at his general 
independence. Cf. Gal. ii. 4, 5. 

obxt “1. tr. K. av édpaxa; This question and the next 
vindicate the claim made in the second question. He is 
certainly an Apostle, for he has the essential qualification of 
having seen the Risen Lord (Acts i. 22, ii. 32, iii. 15, iv. 33, etc.), 
and his preaching has had the power of an Apostle (2 Cor. lii. 1 f., 
xi. 12). The reference is to the Lord’s appearance to him on 
the way to Damascus,—é6y xdpol (xv. 8); an appearance 
which he regarded as similar in kind to the appearances to the 
Eleven on the Easter Day and afterwards. Whether he is also 
referring to the experiences mentioned in Acts xvill. 9, xxii. 17, 
and 2 Cor. xii. 2-4 is uncertain. It is a mistake to say that we 
are not told that he saw the Lord who spoke to him on the 
way to Damascus. ‘This is expressly stated, Acts ix. 17 (dp6eis), 
27 (eldev), xxii. 14 (idetv).* | Note that in this important question 
we have the stronger form of the negative, which is specially 
frequent in this argumentative Epistle (i. 20, ili. 3, v. 12, vi. 7, 
viii. 10, x. 16, 18). In the N.T. Epistles it is almost confined 
to this group of the Pauline Epistles. 

Nowhere else does St Paul use the expression ‘I have seen 
Jesus the Lord,’ and he seldom uses. the name ‘ Jesus’ without 
‘Christ’ either before or after. See notes on Rom. i. 1, pp. 3f. 
When he does use the name ‘ Jesus’ he commonly refers to our 
Lord’s life on earth, especially in connexion with His Death or 
Resurrection (1 Thess. i. 10, iv. 14; 2 Cor. iv, to-14). In 
Rom. iv. 24 we have ‘Jesus our Lord,’ as here, and in both 
cases the reference is to the risen Jesus. The use of ‘Jesus’ 
without ‘Christ’ is very rare in the later Epistles: once in 
Philippians (ii. 10), once in Ephesians (iv. 21), and not at all 
in Colossians or the Pastoral Epistles. See J. A. Robinson, 
Ephesians, pp. 23, 197 ; Milligan, Thessalonians, p. 135 ; Selbie, 

* See Weinel, S¢ Paul, pp. 79f.; A. T. Robertson, Efochs in the Life of 
St Paul, pp. 39 f., a valuable chapter. 
12 


178 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 1,2 


Aspects of Christ, pp. 71 f., a careful discussion of the question 
whether it is possible to separate the Christ of St Paul from 
the Jesus of history. See also the lectures of Dr. Moffatt and 
Dr. Milligan in Re/igion and the Modern World, Hodder, tg09, 
pp. 205-253. The Christ who appeared to Saul on the road 
to Damascus declared Himself to be the historic Jesus whom 
Saul was persecuting, and he thus not merely saw Jesus our 
Lord, but received a ‘voice from His mouth’ (Acts xxii. 14). 
That rested on his own testimony ; but the fact of his conversion 
and the work that he had done since that day was known to all 
(iv. 15; 2 Cor. xii. 12). 

7 €pyov pou. The founding of the Corinthian Church was 
a work worthy of an Apostle: ab effectu jam secundo loco probat 
suum Apostolatum (Calv.). Edwards quotes meum opus es (Seneca, 
Ep. 34). Lest he should seem to be claiming what he disclaims 
in ili. 5-7, he adds ‘in the Lord’: only in that power could such 
a work have been accomplished (iii. 9, iv. 15). 


The order of the first two questions adopted above (é\ev@epos before 
amdéarToXos) is that of 8 ABP, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth., Orig. Tert. The 
other is that of DEF GKL, Goth., which with P, Arm. insert Xpiorév 
either before or after ’Ijcodv. & A B, Am. and other versions omit Xpiorév. 


2. ei Gddorg odk eit amdatodos. The emphatic iets of the 
previous clause leads to an argumentum ad hominem. The 
Corinthians are the very last people who could reasonably 
question his claim to be an Apostle: at any rate to them he 
must be one.* ‘For my certificate of Apostleship are ye’ 
(2 Cor. ili. 2). They themselves are a certificate of the fact, a 
certificate the validity of which lies in the same sphere as the 
success of his work; it is ‘in the Lord.’ Authentication is the 
idea which is specially indicated by the figurative o¢payis. No- 
where in N.T. does opayis seem to be used, as often in later 
writings, with reference to baptism. See notes on Rom. iv. 11, 
p. 107; Lightfoot, Zpp. of Clem. ii. p. 226; Hastings, DB. 
Art. ‘Seal.’ Preachers who were not Apostles might convert 
many, but the remarkable spiritual gifts which Corinthians 
possessed were a guarantee that one who was more than a mere 
preacher had been sent to them. Paulus a fructu colligit se 


divinitus missum esse (Calv.). The dddos may allude to the 
Galatians. 


* d\\d ye occurs nowhere else.in N.T., except Luke xxiv. 21, where see 
footnote, p. 553. He could not prove to any one that he had seen the Lord ; 
but Corinthians at any rate had no need of such evidence to convince them 
that he was an Apostle. He seems to be glancing at the rival teachers who 
questioned his claim to the title. See Dobschiitz, Probleme des Ap. Zeitalters, 


Pp. 105; Fletcher, 7he Conversion of St Paul, pp. 63f.; Ramsay, Pictures 0 
the Apostolic Age, pp. 102f. of St Paul, pp. 636. 5 Ys of 


IX. 3,4] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 179 


Mov Tis dmooro\ys with N BP 17, Orig., rather than rfjs éufs aa. with 
DEFGKL. A few inferior witnesses have émorodjs. 


3. ¥ ui dtodoyla . . . éotw aity. WH. follow Chrysostom 
and Ambrose in making this verse refer to what follows; so also 
AV. and the Revisers. RV. leaves it doubtful. But it is more 
probable that it refers to what precedes. ‘That I have seen the 
Risen Lord, and that you are such a Church as you are,—there 
you have my defence when people ask me for the evidence of 
my Apostleship.” What follows tells us that he refrained from 
making his converts maintain him, and no one disputed his right 
to do that: but the Judaizers did dispute his right to be 
accounted an Apostle. The €uy and éué look back to odpayis 
pov THs aroaroAns. ‘ AZy reply to those who examine me is this’: 
éué, not we. Moreover vv. 4-11 are not so much a defence as a 
statement of claims. Defence begins in the middle of v. 12; but 
a superfluous defence. People blamed him for maintaining his 
independence, but they could not deny his right to do it. See 
Alford, Findlay, Edwards, and B. Weiss: for the other view see 
Bachmann. 

Both dodoyia and dvaxpivovow are forensic expressions, 
perhaps purposely chosen to indicate the high hand which the 
Judaizers assumed in challenging St Paul’s claim. But in its 
strictly forensic sense, of a judicial investigation, dvaxpivw is 
peculiar to Luke in N.T. See on Luke xxiii. 14, and cf. Acts iv. 
g, Xil. 19, etc. It does not much matter whether we take atry 
as predicate (so better), or subject: in either case it means ‘just 
what I have stated.’ Cf. rodro in vii. 6 and xi. 17, and avry in 
John i. 19, xvii. 3. For the dative cf. Acts xix. 33; 2 Cor. xii. 19. 


4. Mi) odk éxoper efoucray; The py is the interrogative zum ; 
the ov« belongs to the verb. ‘Do you mean to say that we have 
no right?’ Lumguid non habemus potestatem (Vulg.): cf. xi. 22; 
Rom. x. 19. Here, as often in the Pauline Epistles, we are in 
doubt whether the plur. includes others with the Apostle: he 
may mean himself and Barnabas. Where he means _ himself 
exclusively he commonly uses the singular: but it is more 
certain that the singular is always personal than that the plural 
commonly includes some one else. See Lightfoot on 1 Thess. ii, 4. 

payeivy kai wetv. ‘To eat and drink what those to whom we 
preach provide for us.’ He is not now thinking of eating idol- 
meats: that subject is for the moment quite in abeyance. Still 
less is he contending that preachers are not bound to be ascetics. 
He says that although he personally refuses entertainment at the 
cost of those to whom he ministers, yet he has a right to it. He 
can do as he likes (éfeor/ por) about it; he has the privilege of 
being maintained. See Clem. Hom. iil. 71; Luke x. 7. 


180 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [Ix. 5 


mew (or miv) as 2nd aor. inf. of rivw is well supported here and x. 7 
(& B* D* FG) against mei (A B® D* EK LP), and appears everywhere 
as a variant, except Matt. xx. 22. It is frequent in MSS. of LXX. See 
WH. 11. Notes, p. 170. 


5. adehpiy yuvaixa mepidyew. ‘Do you mean to say that we 
have no right to take about (with us on our missionary journeys) 
a Christian person as a wife?’ ‘A sister (= Christian woman) 
as wife’ is right. Even if yvvatxa in this construction could 
mean ‘woman,’ it would be superfluous. The Vulgate encour- 
ages the mistranslation ‘woman’ with mulierem sororem. The 
Apostle is not contending that a missionary had a right to take 
about with him a woman who was not his wife. The fact that a 
group of women ministered to Christ could not be supposed to 
justify such indiscretion. But there is an early tradition that 
very few of the Apostles were married, and hence the temptation 
to make yvvatka mean ‘woman’ rather than ‘wife.’ Tertullian 
(Exhort. Cast. 8) translates rightly, Zicebat et apostolis nubere et 
uxores circumducere, and again (Monogam. 8), potestatem uxores 
circumducendi; but in the latter passage he suggests that only 
mulieres, sach as ministered to the Lord, may be meant. ‘This 
misinterpretation is followed by Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, 
and others. It led to a great abuse, not confined to the clergy, 
in the early ages of the Church. Some Christians contracted a 
sort of spiritual union with unmarried persons, and the two lived 
together, without marriage, for mutual spiritual benefit. The 
women in such cases were known as ddeAdgai, dyaryrai, and 
ovveicaxtot. Under the last name they are strictly forbidden, in 
the case of any cleric, by the third Canon of the first Council of 
Nicaea (Hefele, Councils, p. 379; Suicer, Thesaurus, under all 
three words and under yvv7). 

St Paul is not here claiming that Apostles had a right to 
marry ; no one in that age would be likely to dispute that. He 
is claiming that they have a right to maintenance at the cost of 
the Church, and that, if they are married, the wife who travels 
with them shares this privilege. The whole of this passage 
(5-18) is concerned with the privilege (of which he refused to 
make use in his own case) of being maintained at the charges of 
the congregations. But here, as in Gal. i. 19 and elsewhere, we 
are left in doubt as to the exact meaning of dwdoroAo: see on 
XV. 5, 7. 

The Sophists blamed Socrates and Plato for teaching gratuit- 
ously, thus confessing that their teaching was worth nothing 
(Xen. Mem. i. 6; Plat. Gorg. 520, Apol. 20; Arist. Eth. Nic. 
IX. i. 5). This kind of charge may have been made by the 
Judaizers at Corinth. Other Apostles accepted maintenance. 
Why did Paul refuse it? Because he knew that he was no true 


IX. 5] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 181 


Apostle ; or, because he set up for being better than the Twelve ; 
or, because he was too proud to accept hospitality.* 

For zrepidyew transitive see 2 Mac. vi. ro. 

@s kal ot Aoimol dmécrodo. It is probably on this that the 
interpolator of the Ignatian Epistles (P%z/ad. 4) bases his state- 
ment that Peter and Paul and of adAAou drdoroAo were married ; 
where the words e¢ Pau/us are omitted in some Latin texts. See 
on vii. 8. The only Apostles of whose marriage we have direct 
evidence on good authority are Peter and Philip (Papias in Eus. 
HE, iii. 39): see Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 45. This passage 
would certainly lead us to suppose that most of the Apostles 
were married men; it contends that all had the privilege of 
having themselves and their wives maintained by the Church, 
and it implies that some used the privilege, and therefore were 
married. The exact meaning of Aovroé is not clear: it may dis- 
tinguish those who are included from ‘the brethren of the Lord 
and Kephas,’ or from Paul and Barnabas (v. 6). In the former 
case ‘the brethren of the Lord’ are Apostles, for the Apostolic 
body is divided into three parts ; ‘ Kephas,’ ‘the brethren of the 
Lord,’ and ‘the rest of the Apostles.’7 But it is possible that, 
without any strictly logical arrangement, he is mentioning persons 
in high position in the Church who availed themselves of the 
privilege of having their wives maintained as well as themselves, 
when they were engaged in missionary work. See Lightfoot, 
Galatians, p. 95. In dictating, he mentions Peter, by himself, 
at the end, as a specially telling instance ; but we cannot safely 
infer from this that Peter had been in Corinth with his wife: 
i. 12 does not prove it. See Harnack, Mission and Expansion, 
In, 324, 11.90. 

ot ddeAdgol tod Kuptov. Here only does St Paul mention them, 
though he tells us (Gal. i. 19) that James was one. The question 
of their exact relation to Christ has produced endless discussion, 
and the question remains undecided. There is nothing in Scrip- 
ture which forbids the natural interpretation, that they were the 
children of Joseph and Mary born after the birth of Christ. To 
some students of the problem, Matt. i. 25 seems to be decisive 
for this interpretation: see Plummer, .S. A/atthew, pp. 9, 10, and 
the literature there cited. ‘There is wide agreement that Jerome’s 


* There was, of course, another reason. Owing to the influence of St | 


Paul, a good deal of money that had previously supported Judaism now went 
elsewhere. The Jews said that he was making a fortune out of his new 
religion. Hence his protests that he never took maintenance. 

+ Here, as in 2 Cor. xii. 13 and Luke xxiv. 10, AV. ignores the article ; 
‘other apostles,’ ‘ other churches,’ ‘ other women.’ : 

With as cal compare xafws xal, 1 Thess, ii. 14: it introduces an argument 
from induction; v. 7 is an argument from analogy; v. 8 is an appeal to 
authority. 


182 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [Ix. 5-7 


theory, that they were our Lord’s first cousins, children of a Mary 
who was sister to His Mother, cannot be maintained. But see 
Chapman, /7'S. April 1906, pp. 412f. The choice lies between 
the Helvidian and the Epiphanian theories. The decision does 
not affect the argument here. In any case they were persons 
whose close relationship to the Lord gave them distinction in 
the primitive Church: what they did constituted a precedent. 
Kndas, as almost always in Paul (i. 12, ili. 22, xv. 5). 


6. ¥ pdvos éya kai B. The 7, as in vi. 2, 9, puts the question 
from the other point of view; that it adds “some degree of 
emotion” is not so clear. ‘Or is it only I and Barnabas that 
have not a right to forbear working with our hands for a living ?’ 
The reason for including Barnabas is uncertain, and it seems to 
be an afterthought; hence the singular poéves. It implies that 
Barnabas, like Paul, had refused maintenance ; and it is possible 
that there had been an agreement between them that on their 
missionary journey (Acts xili. 3) they would not cost the Churches 
anything. It seems also to imply that the practice of Barnabas 
was well known. 

€pydfeo8ar. Manual labour, to earn a livelihood, is com- 
monly meant by the word, with (iv. 12; 1 Thess. iv. 11) or 
without (Matt. xxi. 28; Luke xii. 14; Acts xvilil. 3) tats yepoiv 
added. Here again Greek sentiment would be against the 
Apostle’s practice. ‘That a teacher who claimed to lead and to 
rule should work with his hands for a living would be thought 
most unbecoming: nothing but the direst necessity excused 
labour in a free citizen (Arist. Pod. iil. 5). Contrast 2 Thess. iii. 
6-12. 


7. Three illustrations add force to the argument, and they 
are such as are analogous to the Christian minister, who wages 
war upon evil, plants churches, and is a shepherd to congrega- 
tions.* It is perhaps accidental that in each case the status of 
the worker is different ; but this strengthens the argument. The 
soldier works for pay; the vine-planter is a proprietor; the 
shepherd is a slave. But to all alike the principle is applicable 
that labour may claim some kind of return. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 6. 

épwviots. Though applying primarily to the soldier’s food, 
it may cover his pay and his outfit generally. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 8; 
Rom. vi. 23; Luke iii. 14, where see note. The word is late 
(1 Esdr. iv. 56; 1 Mac. iii. 28; xiv. 32), and is sometimes 
extended to mean the supplies of an army. See Lightfoot on 
Rom. vi. 23; Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 226. 

Tov kKapmév . . . €x Tod ydAaxtos. The change of construction 


* Origen points out that it is as a disciple of the Good Shepherd, who laid 
down His life for the sheep, that the Apostle uses this illustration. 


” 
XI. 7-10] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 183 


is perhaps intentional. A proprietor disposes of the whole of the 
produce; a slave gets only a portion of it. Cf. Tobit i. ro. In 
some texts Tov xapzov has been corrected to ék rod kaprod (E K L, 
Latt. Syrr. Copt. Arm.). See Prov. xxvii. 18. 


8. Mi) kata dv@pwmrov. ‘Do you think that I am speaking 
these things by man’srule?’ It is not merely in accordance with 
human judgment of what is fitting that he lays down the prin- 
ciple that labour has a right to a living wage. There is higher 
authority than that. The expression xara av6pwov occurs thrice 
in this Epistle (iil. 3, xv. 32) and thrice in the same group 
(Rom. iii. 5; Gal. i. 11, iii. 15), with slightly different shades of 
meaning: ‘from a human point of view’ is the leading idea. 

# kat 6 vopos. ‘Or (v. 6) does the Law also not say these 
things?’ Perhaps some one had urged that 6 vomos ratra od 
A€yee ‘is silent on the subject’: it is not laid down that con- 
gregations must maintain Apostles. The change from Aadé to 
Aéyee is perhaps intentional, the one referring to mere human 
expression, the other to the substance of what is said. As in ovx 
éxonev (v. 4), the negative belongs to the verb. 


Neither Vulg. (dico . . . dicit) nor AV. distinguishes the verbs : they 
apparently follow D E F G in reading Aéyw for \aAG. KL P have # otx?t 
kal 6 vouos Tatra Néyer: F G have 7 el xaldy.7.. Doubtless # xal 6 v7. 
o A. (N ABCDE, Vulg. Copt.) is right. 


9. Philo (De Humanitate) quotes this prohibition as evidence 
of the benevolence of the Law; and Driver (on Deut. xxv. 4) 
says that it is ‘another example of the humanity which is character- 
ise or DE” (Cf Exod. xx. 10, xxiii. 12; Proyaxitaroui@sen 
still, as a rule, thresh unmuzzled in the East. Conder says that 
exceptions are rare. Near Jericho, Robinson saw the oxen of 
Christians muzzled, while those belonging to Mahometans were 
not. Driver quotes these and other instances. Cf. 2 Sam. xxiv. 
22; Isa. xxviii. 27f.; Mic. iv. 12f. Elsewhere (De Spec. Leg.) 
Philo says, od yap dep aAdywv 6 vopos, AAG tov BvdvTw. 

It is not easy to decide between giudces (NX AB? CD? EKLP) and 
knuwoers (B* D* FG). There is the same difference of reading 1 Tim. v. 
18, but there ¢iudcers is unquestionably right, as in LXX of Deut. xxv. 4. 
How could xjywoets be so well attested, if it were not original? If it were 
original it would readily be corrected to the LXX, esp. as xnuéw is rare: 
knués is found in LXX (Ps. xxxi. 9; Ezek. xix. 4, 9), but not knudw. 
Here Chrys. and Thdrt. support xnuweeis. 


10. py tay Body péXer TG eG; ‘Do you suppose that it is 
for the oxen that God cares?’ St Paul does not mean that God 
has no care for the brutes (Ps. civ. 14, 21, 27, cxlv. 9, 15; Matt. 
vi. 26, x. 30). Nor does he mean that in forbidding the 
muzzling, God was not thinking of the oxen at all. He means 


184 | FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS _ [IX. 10 


that the prohibition had a higher significance, in comparison 
with which the literal purport of it was of small moment. Jewish 
interpreters sometimes abandoned the literal meaning of Scripture, 
and turned it entirely into allegory. They not merely allegorized 
the words, but said that the literal meaning was untrue. In 
some cases they urged that the literal meaning was incredible, 
and that therefore the words were intended to be understood 
symbolically and in no other way. Thus Philo (De Somn. i. 16) 
says that Exod. xxii. 27 cannot be supposed to be meant literally, 
for the Creator would not be interested about such a trifle as a 
garment: and elsewhere (De Sacrif. 1) he says that the Law was 
not given for the sake of irrational animals, but for the sake of 
those who have mind and reason. Cf. Zp. Barn. x. 1, 2, Xi. 1. 
St Paul elsewhere allegorizes the O.T., as Hagar and Sarah 
(Gal. iv. 24), and the fading of the light on Moses’ face (2 Cor. 
iii. 13), but in neither case does he reject the literal meaning. It 
is not probable that he does so here; even if ravtws be rendered 
‘entirely,’ it need not be pressed to mean that the oxen were 
not cared for at all. Weinel, St Paw/, p. 59. 

4 Se Hpas wdvtws A€yer; ‘Or is it for our sakes, as doubtless 
it is, that He saith it?’ See RV. marg. For zavrws Vulg. has 
utigue ; Beza, omnino: utique is probably right. It emphasizes 
the truth of this second suggestion ‘assuredly’; cf. Luke iv. 23 : 
Acts xviii. 21, xxi. 22, xxvili. 4. In Rom. iii. 9, ov wavtws 
means ‘entirely not,’ ‘not at all,’ rather than ‘not entirely,’ ‘ not 
altogether.’ See Thackeray, pp. 193f. The pas probably 
means Christians;* but it may mean the Jewish nation, or 
mankind, to teach them to be just and humane. Origen prefers 
the former interpretation ; ovxoty 60 quads tovs THY Kawyy SiabyKnv 
rapeAnporas eipytar Tatra, Kal rept avOpwrwv yéypamtat, mvevpa- 
TLKOS TOU PyTOU voovpevov Kata Tov Oeiov azoaroAov. Among 
Christians, Christian missionaries are specially meant. We 
might expect od A€ye, as in v. 8. B. Weiss makes the sentence 
categorical ; ‘ Rather for our sakes absolutely (v. 10) He says it.’ 

Be Hpas yap eypddy. ‘The yap, as in 1 Thess. ii. 20, implies 
an affirmative answer to the previous question. ‘Yes indeed for 
» our sakes it was written.’ It was with an eye to men rather than 
to oxen that this prohibition was laid down. Weinel, S¢ Pau, 
Pp. 53; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 30, 152, 336. 

Ore Sethe. em eAridt. The dr is explanatory: ‘¢o show that 
it is in hope that the plougher ought to plough and the thresher 
(ought to thresh) in the hope of having a share (of the produce).’ 
The sentence is condensed, but quite intelligible: éx’ éAid: is 
emphatic by position, and is then repeated for emphasis when 


*The record of what was preparatory to the Gospel was made for the 
sake of those who received the Gospel. 


IX. 10-12] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 185 


the thing hoped for is stated. RV. renders é7e ‘because,’ as if 
the meaning were that the prohibition must have an eye to men, 
because it is in accordance with common notions of what is fair: 
which is unlikely. The ‘that’ of AV. is too indefinite. ‘ Few 
particles in the N.T. give greater difficulty to the interpreter 
than 67” (Ellicott). Retaining ‘ Christian teachers’ or ‘ Apostles’ 
as the meaning of jas, we must understand the ploughing and 
threshing as metaphors for different stages of missionary work. 
Such work, and indeed teaching of any kind, is often compared 
to agriculture. Some of the processes of agriculture represent 
mission-work better than others, and St Paul would perhaps have 
taken reaping rather than threshing, had not the quotation about 
threshing preceded. But threshing may represent the separation 
of the true converts from the rest.* ‘To take éypad@y as referring 
to what follows, and introducing another quotation, is a most 
improbable construction: there is no such Scripture. 
dpetrec em’ Edrridt 6 dp. dp. (N* ABC P 17, Vulg., Orig. Eus.) is to 
be preferred to é’ Arid: og. 6 dp. dp. (N°? D? K L, Chrys. Thdrt.), where 
the desire to make ém’ éArié still more emphatic has influenced the order. 
Other texts are much confused. 
kal 6 d\ody én’ édmide roi weréxey (R* A BCP 17, Syrr. Copt. Arm. 
Aeth., Orig. Eus.) is to be preferred to x. 6 aX. THs éEAridos atrod peréxew 
ém’ édmldt (N° D3 E KL, Chrys. Thdrt.) and to x. 6 aX. ris éXmldos avrov 
peréxew (D* F G, Ambst.). Some scribe did not see that ddogy must be 


understood, and thus took peréyew to be the verb after dpeihe, making 
alterations to suit this construction. 


ll. Ei jpets Spiv . . . et Hpets Guay. The sets in both places 
is emphatic and by juxtaposition is brought into contrast with the 
pronoun which follows. Cf. ov pov virres tods rddas (John xiii. 
6). There is possibly a slight vein of banter in the question, 
‘Tf it is we who in your hearts sowed spiritual blessings, is it an 
exorbitant thing that we out of your possessions shall reap 
material blessings?’ What the Apostle gave was incalculable in 
its richness, what he might have claimed but never took, was a 
trivial advantage: was it worth disputing about? Was a little 
bodily sustenance to be compared with the blessings of the 
Gospel? With peéya «icf. 2 Cor. xi. 15: with ta oapkixa cf. ra 
Bwwtixa (vi. 3); ‘all that is necessary for our bodily sustenance.’ ~ 


Gepicowev (N AB K) seems preferable to depiowuey (C DEF GL P). 
The future indicative marks the reaping as more certain to follow, for 
which reason Evans prefers the subjunctive. The Apostle refused to reap. 
See Lightfoot on Phil. iii. 11: he thinks that there is only one decisive 
instance of ei with subj. in N.T. 


12. ei dAdo THs Spay efoucias petéxouow. ‘If others (the 
Judaizing teachers) have a share of the privilege which you 


* Cf. the separation of the fruit of the Spirit from the works of the flesh, 
Gal. v. 19-23. 


186 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS  [IX.12 


bestow,’ viz. the privilege of being maintained by the congregation. 
It seems better to make ipév the subjective genitive. Yet most 
commentators make it the objective genitive; ‘have a share of 
the right exercised over you’ (Mark vi. 7). But throughout the 
passage the éfovcia is looked at from the Apostles’ side, the 
advantage which rightly belongs to them. This implies power 
over the Corinthians to make them supply the maintenance ; 
but that is not the side under consideration. And ‘to have a 
share in power over people’ is a somewhat strange expression : 
‘to have a share of a privilege which people allow’ is natural 
enough. But the sense is the same, however the genitive is 
interpreted. ‘We have a better claim than others to the right 
of maintenance.’ Some conjecture 7péav for ipar. 

GAN’ odk Expyodpeba tH Efoucia tr. ‘ Nevertheless,’ he triumph- 
antly exclaims, ‘we never availed ourselves of this privilege’ ; 
after elaborately demonstrating his right to the privilege, as if he 
were about to say, ‘ Therefore I hope that you will recognize the 
right and give the necessary maintenance for us in future,’ he 
declares that he has never accepted it and never means to do 
so;* and he seems to include Silvanus and Timothy. 

GAG mdvta oréyopev. ‘On the contrary, we endure all 
things’; ‘we bear up under all kinds of privations and depriva- 
tions, sooner than make use of this privilege.’ The verb may mean 
‘we are proof against,’ but it may be doubted whether zavra 
means ‘‘all pressure of temptation” to avail ourselves of mainten- 
ance. See on xiii. 7, and Milligan on 1 Thess. ili. 1. Beza 
needlessly conjectures orepyopev. 

iva py twa éevkotivy SGpev. ‘In order that we may not furnish 
any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ.’ Neither in LXX nor 
elsewhere in N.T. does évxory occur, and the word is rare in 
class. Grk. It is literally ‘an incision,’ and hence an ‘inter- 
ruption’ or ‘violent break,’ as r7s dpyovias. It is perhaps a 
metaphor from breaking bridges or roads to stop the march of 
an enemy. The English ‘hamper’ had a similar origin, of 
impeding by means of cutting. ‘That we may not in any way 
hamper the progress of the Gospel’ is therefore the meaning. 
Obviously, if he took maintenance, he might be suspected of 
preaching merely for the sake of what he got by it. Moreover, 
those who had to maintain him might resent the burden, and be 
unwilling to listen to him. Chrysostom uses dvaBoAy, ‘a mound 
thrown up to stop progress,’ as equivalent to évko7y. St Paul’s 
passionate determination to keep himself independent, especially 


* Dix fois tl revient avec fierté sur ce détail, en apparence puéril, gwil n'a 
rien couté & personne, quoigue’ il eit bien pu faire comme les autres et vivre 
de l’autel. Le mobile de son zéle était un amour des ames en quelque sorte 
infint (Renan, S. Pau/, 237). 


IX. 12-14] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 187 


at Corinth, appears in various places ; 3 Cor. xi. 9, 10; 1 Thess. 
ii. 9; 2 Thess. ili. 8. He must be free to rebuke, and his praise 
must be above the suspicion of being bought. While labouring 
at Corinth, he could accept help from Macedonians, but not from 
Corinthians. When Ignatius (PA/ad. 6) says that no one can 
accuse him of having been oppressive (€Bapyoa), he probably 
refers to the suppression of opinion rather than the enforcing of 
maintenance. Cf. éevéxowev, 1 Thess. ii. 18. 


The MSS. vary between budv éfouvcias (§ ABCDEFGP) and €. 
dudy : between twa éyx. (SN A BC) and éyx. twa: between éyxorjv (A C D? 
EFGKP), évxorjy (B* F G) and éxxorjy (& D* L). Thereis no authority 
for Rudy éLovelas. 


18. He has reminded them that he has never in the past 
taken maintenance. Before stating what he means to do in the 
future, he strengthens the proof that he has a right to it. 
There is a higher and closer analogy than that of the soldier or 
of the different kinds of husbandmen. ‘The other analogies may 
have escaped their notice, but surely they must be aware of the 
usages of the Temple, which in this matter did not differ from 
heathen usage. See Gray on Num. xviii. 8-20. 

odk otdate ; ‘Do you not know that those who perform the 
temple-rites eat the food that comes out of the temple, those 
who constantly attend on the altar share with the altar’ what is 
offered thereon? ‘The second half is not an additional fact ; it 
repeats the first half in a more definite form. See Num. 
xviii. 8-20 of the priest’s portions, and 21-24 of the Levite’s 
tithe, and contrast Deut. xiv. 23 (see Driver, p. 169). Nowhere 
else in N.T. does cvvpepi€opar occur. 


7a €x Tod iepod (NX B D* F G, Copt.) is preferable to éx rod iepod, without 
74(AC D3 EK LP, Syrr. Arm.): and rapedpetovres (8* ABC DE FG P) 
to mpocedpevovres (N° KL). Neither verb occurs elsewhere in N.T., and 
there is little difference of meaning between them. See LXX of Prov. 
ry Alle Vahey kee 


14. Just as God appointed that the priests and Levites should 
be supported out of what the people offered to Him, so did 
Christ also appoint that missionaries should be supported out 
of the proceeds of missions. For the parallel between Christian 
preachers and Jewish priests see Rom. xv. 16. It is clear that 
6 Kvpros means Christ; ‘the Lord a/so,’ just as Jehovah had 
done. St Paul was familiar with what is recorded Matt. x. 10; 
Luke x. 7, 8. See on vii. ro and xi. 23. 

éy S€ od Kéxpynpat oddevi todTwv. He repeats, in a stronger 
form, the statement of v. 12. The change of tense brings it 
down to the present moment: ‘I did not avail myself,’ ovx 
éxpnodpny, and ‘I have not availed myself,’ ob xéxpypat. More- 


188 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX.14 


over, the addition of the pronoun makes the statement more 
emphatic ; ‘7, however, have not availed myself of any of these 
advantages.’ Others may have done so, but he has not. He 
now thinks no longer of Silvanus and Timothy, who were per- 
haps included in ovx« éxpyodueba (v. 12), and speaks only of 
himself. Even the close analogy of the maintenance of the 
priests has not induced him to do that. He has now com- 
pletely justified the plea that he is not asking them to forego 
more than he foregoes himself. Sz ego propter aliorum salutem 
a debitis sumptibus abstinut, saltem vos ab tmmotlatis carnibus 
abstinete, ne multos fratrum praccipitetts in interitum (Herv.). But 
7. 13 may possibly have been introduced for the sake of another 
parallel. ‘Like the priests who partake of what has been sacri- 
ficed, I have a right to partake of offerings, but for the sake of 
others I forbear. Then may I not ask you, although you have 
a right to partake of what has been sacrificed, for the sake of 
others to forbear ?’ 

Having emphatically reminded them of his practice in the 
past, he now declares that he means to make no change. All 
this argument is not a prelude to requiring maintenance from 
them in future. 

Odx éypapa S€ tadra. ‘Now I did not write all this,’ viz. all 
the pleas which he has been urging (vv. 4-14). Or 5€ may be 
‘yet,’ ‘however,’ and éypawa may be the epistolary aorist, like 
hynodpyvy and éreuwa (Phil. il. 25, 28), dvérena and éypaya 
(Philem. 11, 19, 21); ‘Yet I am not writing all this’: Winer, 

¢p. 347. Deissmann gives examples from papyri, Zighé, pp. 
157, 164. 

iva odtws yevnrat ev evot. ‘That it may be so done (for the 
future) in my case’: not ‘unto me,’ as A.V. Vulg. has i” me 
rightly, and ¢7 eo, Matt. xvii. 12, where both AV. and RV. have 
‘unto him.’ 

kahov ydp por. . . ovSelg kevdoet. Both reading and con- 
struction are doubtful. WH. make a rather violent aposiopesis 
after waAAov arobavety 7: ‘For a happy thing (it were) for me 
rather to die than No one shall make void my glorying,’ 
#.e. his repeated declaration that he has never used his privilege 
of free maintenance. Lachmann’s punctuation is still more 
violent ; ‘For a happy thing it were for me rather to die than 
that my glorying should do so: no one shall make it void.’* 
The alternative is mentally to supply iva, which with the fut. 
indic. is unusual, but not impossible (see v. 18). This difficulty 
led to the reading va ms xevéon. It is impossible to get a 
satisfactory construction out of what seems to be the true text. 


nae Lachmann conjectures vh 76 katynud wou: cf. xv. 31. Michelsen con- 
Jectures vf) 76 kK. wou 6 obdels Kevddoet. 





IX. 15-18] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 189 


ob Kéxpnuae oddert (N* ABC D* EFGP 17) may safely be adopted : 
other texts vary the order, and some have éxpyodunv from v, 12. And 
ovdels kevoet (N* B D* 17) is to be preferred to iva tis Kevdioy or Keviboer 
(s°C D?K LP). But whatever text or construction we adopt the sense 
remains the same; ‘I would rather die than be deprived of my independ- 
ence.’ But ‘rather die of hunger than accept food’ is not the meaning. 
For xaddv . . . # see Swete on Mark ix. 43; Winer, p. 302: the con- 
struction is not rare in LXX. 


16. There must be no misunderstanding as to what he con- 
siders a matter for glorying. There can be no glory in doing 
what one is forced to do ; and he is forced to preach the Gospel, 
because if he refused to do so, God would punish him. But he 
is not forced to preach the Gospel gratis ; and he does preach 
gratis. In this there is room for glorying. See Chadwick, 
Pastoral Teaching, pp. 306 f. 

dvdykn ydp po. émkerrat. He refers to the special com- 
mission which he had received on the way to Damascus (Acts 
ix. 6). He was ‘a chosen vessel to bear Christ’s name before the 
Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel’ (Acts ix. 15); he 
was separated for the work to which the Holy Spirit had called 
him (Acts xiii. 2); and this commission had been repeated in 
the Temple (Acts xxii. 21). It was impossible for him to reject 
tie om. 4) t4\5¢Gal..i. 15 f.; Ezek. iii. 17 f., Sis lade aay, 
RV.) is not accurate for éwike:rac: ‘lies’ or ‘presses upon me’ 
is the meaning (Luke v. 1, xxiil. 23; Acts xxvii. 20): éwtxerar 
Hpiv ta THS Bacretas (1 Mac. vi. 57); Kparepy 8 émexeioer’ 
avayxn (Hom. Z/. vi. 458). But St Paul’s dvdyxy is the call 
of God, not the Greek’s driving of blind fate. 


17, 18. Various explanations have been given of these rather 
obscure verses, and it is not worth while to discuss them all. 
The following is close to the Greek and fits the context. ‘For 
if by my own choice I make a business of this (as other teachers 
do), I get a reward (as they do).’ As a matter of fact the 
Apostle does zo¢ do this; he preaches because he must, and 
does not make a business of it or take any reward. But in 
order to make the argument complete, he states an alternative 
which might be a fact. He then states what zs a fact. ‘If, 
however, it is not of my own choice, then it is a stewardship 
that has been entrusted to me. What, then, is the reward that 
comes to me? Why, that in preaching the Gospel I shall 
render the Gospel free of charge, so as not to use to the utter- 
most my privilege in the Gospel.’ Or we may explain thus: 
(1) St Paul fad a pio Ods (v. 18); therefore ei yap eov .. . is 
not a rejected alternative ; (2) his psoGds is practically the same 
as his xavynpa (v. 15). Thus the alternatives of v. 17 are doth 
true. He preached of obligation, but also in a way he was not 


190 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [Ix. 17-19 


obliged to adopt, #.e. without pay. The latter, not the former, 
secured him a reward. If he wished to exercise his privilege 
as an Apostle for all that it was worth (xaraxpyoacba), he 
would insist upon full maintenance as his puoOds. But the 
puabdes which he prefers and gets is the delight of preaching 
without pay, of giving the Glad-tidings for nought, and taking 
no money for them. The idea of his profs being the com- 
mendation which he will receive at the Day of Judgment is 
quite foreign to the passage. Some editors carry the interroga- 
tion on to evayyeAtw. This makes a question of awkward length, 
and leaves the question to answer itself. To put the question 
at 6 pucOds, and make what follows the answer to it, is more 
pointed. ‘What is the pay that I get? Why, the pleasure of 
refusing pay.’ An oixovdjmos was often a slave (Luke xii. 42). 
With weriorevpat compare Gal. ii. 7 and Lukyn Williams’ note 
there; also 1 Tim. i. 11; Tit. i. 3; and see Deissmann, Zight, 
p. 379. Nowhere else in the Bible does déazavov occur, and 
nowhere else in N.T. does dxwy occur. See on vii. 31 for 
Kataxpnoac Oa, 


ot €orly (8° B L P) rather than éorly wor (D E), or wou éorly (N* AC K), 
or éorac por (D* FG). After 7d evayyé\tov, D?E FG K LP, Syrr. add 
rod Xpisrov : N A BC D*, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth, omit. 


19. *EdevGepos yap dv. ‘For although I am free from all, yet 
I made myself a bondservant to all, in order that I might gain 
the more.’* He is about to show other ways in which he 
waives his rights, in order to serve others and help the spread 
of the Gospel. Others take these verses (19-23) as explaining 
the ways in which he gets his recompense by refusing recom- 
pense. But €AevGepos dv seems to look back to v. 1 and to 
prepare the way for further instances of his forgoing his éAev@epia. 
Note the emphatic juxtaposition of wavtwv waow by chiasmus. 
Both wavrwy and zaow are ambiguous as regards gender ; but 
maow is almost certainly masculine, and that makes it almost 
certain that wdvrwv is masculine; ‘all men’ (AV., RV.) 3 jeder- 
mann (Luther); so also Calvin, though he regards the neuter 
as possible. Origen adopts the neuter as if it were certain. 
“To be free é« mavtwy,” he says, “is the mark of a perfect 
Apostle. A man may be free from unchastity but be a slave 
to anger, free from avarice but a slave to vanity; he may be 
free from one sin but a slave to another sin. But to say, 
‘Although I am free from all,’ is the mark of a perfect Apostle: 
and such was Paul.” Strange that Origen should suppose that 
the Apostle would make any such claim. He rightly points 


* The éx expresses more strongly than dé (Rom. vii. 3) that he is freed 
out of all dependence on others ; he is extricated from entangling ties. 


IX. 19, 20] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE IQI 


out that there was no harm in Paul’s going to Jewish synagogues 
and observing Jewish customs, for he did not do this deceitfully, 
GAXG Onpevwv twas e€ aitav. In interpreting, Origen inserts the 
article before vomov, and each time writes ot t7d tov vopor. 
He says that people asked what was the difference between oi 
*Tovdatoe and vt id tov vépuov, and he thinks that the latter refers 
to such people as the Samaritans. But, in guofing, he omits the 
article. He points out that St Paul does not say 7 dv ‘lovdaios, 
for he was a Jew, although over €v 7@ gavepo: but he does say 
pa dv brd vopov, for he was not a Samaritan. The meaning 
of it all is, that he could find in all men something with which 
he could sympathize, and he used this to win them. This was 
hard work for one with so strong and pronounced an individu- 
ality as he had. 

tovs mAelovas. He could not expect to win a//; but rovs 
mAciovas does not mean ‘the majority of mankind,’ nor ‘more 
than any other Apostle,’ but ‘more than I should have gained if 
I had not made myself a slave to all.’ This is best expressed 
by ‘the more’ (AV., RV.). With xepdjow cf. Matt. xviii. 15 ; 
zt Pet, i> 1.* 


20. He now gives examples of his becoming a slave to all. 
He is the slave of Christ, and becomes a slave to others, in order, 
like a faithful oikovoyos, to make gains for his Master. An 
oixovoyos (see above) might be a slave. ‘And (kat epexegetic) 
I behaved to the Jews as a Jew,’ e.g. in circumcising Timothy 
at Lystra (Acts xvi. 3). Cf. Acts xxi. 26. 

Tots 61d vopov Gs bd vopov. ‘To them that are under Law 
I behaved as one under Law.’ The context shows clearly that 
véumos here means the Mosaic Law as a whole: but the sentence 
is not a mere explication of the preceding one. The one 
refers to nationality, the other to religion; and there were some 
who were under the Mosaic Law who were not Jews by race. 
The Apostle includes all who are not heathen. 

pi) Gv adrds md vopoy. ‘Though I knew that I was not 
myself under Law.’ He does not say ovx ov, which might refer 
to a fact of which he was not aware: but ov with participles 
is rare in N.T. The parenthesis is remarkable as showing how 
completely St Paul had broken with Judaism. See Dobschiitz, 
Probleme, p. 82. In commenting on this verse Origen indicates 
that he was not the first to do so; ties eyrncay tis 7 diadopa 
tov trod Tov vopov Tapa Tos "lovdatous. See on i. 24. 

This parenthesis is omitted in D* K, Copt. Aeth. AV., but is clearly to 


be inserted with NABCD*EFGP, Vulg. Arm. RV. The omission 
is probably due to homoeoteleuton, vdpuov to vduor. 


* It is just possible that there is an allusion to the charge of making a gain 
(2 Cor. xi. 12, xii. 17): his only gain was winning souls. 


192 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 21, 22 


21. trois dvdpos. He goes a good deal further, and says 
that he was willing to behave as a heathen to heathen (cf. 
Gal. ii. 19). He did this, as Origen remarks, when he quoted 
heathen poets, and took as a text the inscription on a heathen 
altar, dyveorw MG. See also Acts xiv. 15, xxiv. 25, where 
his arguments are such as a heathen would appreciate. Here 
dvowos does not mean ‘lawless’ in the sense of disregarding 
and transgressing law (Luke xxii. 37; Acts il. 23; 1 Tim. 
i. 9), but=ot pi td vopov, ‘those who were outside Law’; 
Rom. ii. 14. Evans (following Estius, ex/ex, im/ex) translates, 
‘To God’s outlaws I behaved as an outlaw, not being (as I 
well knew) an outlaw of God, but an inlaw of Christ’; and 
Origen explains the latter as meaning typOv tiv woduTEtay Ti 
Kata TO evayyeAvov. But even ‘outlaw’ has too much of the idea 
of lawlessness to be quite satisfactory. ‘The genitives, @cov and 
Xpicrod mean ‘in relation to.’ Qui est dvopos @eG est etiam 
dvowos Xpwor@: gui est évvopos Xpiot@ est évvopos Wed: and (on 
Gal. vi. 2) dex Christi, lex amoris (Beng.). It was the /ex amorts, 
as followed by himself, that the Apostle would enforce on the 
Corinthians with regard to eating idol-meats; and this thought 
brings him to the last illustration of his forbearing conformity, 
trois dabeveow aobevyns. The Law of Christ, while freeing him 
from the Law of Moses, did not leave him free to do as he 
pleased: it restrained him, and kept him from wandering to 
other objects than the service of God and man (2 Cor. v. 14). 


Oco0 and Xpisrod (NW A BC D* FG P, Latt. Copt., Orig. Chrys.) rather 
than Ge and Xpio7r@ (D°K L, Arm. Thdrt.): see Blass, § 36. 11. Kepddvw 
or xepdav® (N* ABC FGP 17) rather than xepdjow (X* DE K L, Orig. 
Chrys. Thdrt.), which is from vv. 19, 20. Tods dvduous (NX ABCDE P 17, 
Orig.) rather than dvdéuous (N° F G K L, Chrys. Thdrt.), perhaps to conform 


with 'Tovdaious. 

22. tois dobevéow dobevns. ‘To the weaklings I became a 
weakling’ (no os). When he had to deal with the over- 
scrupulous, he sympathized with their scruples, abstaining from 
things which seemed to them (though not to him) to be wrong. 
Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 29; Rom. xiv. 1, xv. 1. Certainly this is the 
meaning, not “those who had not strength to believe the 
Gospel.” Origen says that he was weak to the weak when he 
allowed those who burn to marry. He points out that Paul 
does not say py dv airds dobevyjs, which would have been 
ddalovixov and brepypavoy : yet surely not so much so as Origen’s 
own interpretation of éAevOepos éx mavtwy (see on vw. 19). See 
Resch, Agrapha, pi ree 

_Tois maw yéyova mdvra, ‘To them all I am become all 
things.’ The change from aorist to perfect is significant ; this is 
the permanent result of his past action; he is always all-sided in 


IX. 22-24] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 193 


all relations. His accommodation has no limit excepting the 
one just stated, that he is évvoyos Xpuorot. See Lightfoot on 
Gal. il. 5, where we see this limit operating ; also On Revision, 
p- 92. ‘Tarsus taught him to be many-sided. (Ramsay, Pictures 
of the Apostolic Church, pp. 346 f.) 

wa tdavtws tds cdéow. Another significant change; from 
Kepdyow to adow. When he sums up the various conciliations 
and accommodations he states the ultimate aim ;—not merely to 
win this or that class to his side, but, by every method that was 
admissible, to save their souls. Peter sacrificed a Christian 
principle to save himself from Jewish criticism (Gal. ii. 12-14). 
Cf. for the rdvrws Tobit xiv. 8; 2 Mac. iii. 13. See the remark- 
able comment on vv. 20 22 in Cassian, Conf. xvi. 20. 


Before dodevyjs, 8° CDFGKLP, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. insert cs 
from vv. 20, 21: N* AB, Latt. Orig. omit. Before ravra, D?K LP, 
Orig. Thdrt. insert rd: NABCD* FG omit. For rdvrws rwds some 
texts (DEF G, Latt.) have mdvras, or (17, Clem-Alex.) rods mdvras. 
Clem-Alex. (Strom. Vv. 3) has three variations from the true text; mavra 
éyevouny iva robs ravras Kepdjow. Orig. varies between rods rdvras, rdvTas 
H twas, and mavra. Calv., rejecting ut omnes facerem salvos (Vulg.) for 
ut omnino aliguos servem, remarks ; guia successu interdum caret indul- 
gentia cujus Paulus memintt, optime conventt haec restrictio: guamuis non 
proficeret apud omnes, non tamen destitisse, quin paucorum saltem utilitati 
consuleret, 


23. mdvra S€ od 81a Td edayyédtov. ‘Yet all that I do, I do 
because of the Gospel.’* Not, ‘for the Gospel’s sake,’ in order 
to help its progress, but because the Gospel is so precious to 
himself. He has just been stating how much he does for the 
salvation of others; he now adds that he is also careful of his 
own salvation, and thus anticipates the conclusion of v. 27. 
What follows shows that this is the meaning; he must secure his 
share in that eternal life which the Gospel offers. 

iva cuvkowwvds attod yéevwuar. ‘In order that I may prove to 
be a fellow-partaker thereof,’ z.e. not lose his share in the salva- 
tion which he tries to bring to others.t— Even in speaking of his 
own salvation he does not regard it as the main thing, or as 
something apart by itself. Salvation is offered by the Gospel to 
all; and he must strive to be one of those who receive it. The 
prize is not yet won: ovv et ytyvouac magnam habent modestiam 


(Beng.). 


24. The thought of possible failure, where failure would be 
so disastrous, suggests an exhortation to great exertion, which is 


* “This I do’ (AV.) comes from a wrong reading ; todro (K L, Syrr.), 


instead of ravra. } pay A 
+ This gives some support to the view that, in iii. 9, @¢00 cvvepyol means 
‘sharers in work for God,’ but it does not make that view probable, 


13 


194 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [Ix. 24, 25 


illustrated by the practice of runners and boxers in the Isthmian 
games. ‘These were held once in three years close to Corinth. 
See Hastings, DB. art. ‘Games’; Smith, D. of Grk. and Rom. 
Ant. art. ‘Isthmia.’ The reference to the games is certain; 
such contests were common everywhere. The reference to the 
Isthmian games is much less certain. See Ramsay, Pauline 
Studies, p. 332, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, p. 363. 

ot év otadiw tpéxovtes . . . BpaBetov. ‘The runners in a 
race-course all of them run, but one taketh the prize.’* Does 
that mean, asks Origen, that only one Christian is saved, while 
the rest of us are lost? Not so, for all who are in the way of 
salvation are one, ‘one body.’ It is the Christian Church that 
runs, and there is a prize for each of its members. But the prize 
is not in all cases the same: God gives to each according to his 
merit. The derivation of BpaBetov (4rabeum, brabium, bravium) 
is unknown. It occurs Phil. iii, 14; Clem. Rom. Con 5; 
Tatian, Ad Graec. 33. 


25. ottws tpéxete, tva xatahdBnte. ‘So run, that ye may 
secure it.’ The otrws may look back to the successful com- 
petitor; ‘run as he does’: or it may simply anticipate the fva.7 
The change from AapBave to KkatadkaBnre marks the difference 
between mere receiving and securing as one’s own possession, 
and this play on words cannot be reproduced in English. Evans 
suggests ‘take’ and ‘overtake.’ This would be excellent, if we 
had otrws dudxere, iva xatadaByre, for duoxew and xaraAapBavew 
are common correlatives for ‘pursue’ and ‘overtake.’ But here 
the idea of one Christian overtaking another is alien to the 
context, and ‘to overtake a prize’ is not a natural expression. 
In Phil. ili. 12 we have the same play on words, but there we 
have éuxw, as also in Rom. ix. 30. 

mas d€ 6 dywvildpevos. It is easy to talk about securing the 
prize, ‘éu¢ every one who enters for a contest, in everything 
practises self-control’; he goes into strict training, which for a 
Greek athlete lasted ten months. The verb occurs vii. 9, and 
nowhere else in N.T. Cf. Hor. Avs Poet. 412f. AV. puts a 
colon, RV. a full stop, here, so that what follows is an inde- 
pendent sentence. More probably, éxeivor pev and jpeis Sé are 
two classes which make up the whole company of athletes, was 6 
dywv€ouevos. With WH. put only a comma after éyxpareverac. 
Emphasis on was and rayvra. 

o8aprév orépavov. In the Isthmian games a pine-wreath: 
ef. 1 Pet. v. 4; Wisd. iv. 2. Philo (De Migr. Aér. 6), “Thou 

* Compare the contrast between wdyres and obx év rots mheloow (x: 35.5). 

+ In any case it means ferseveranter nec vespicientes retro.—Recte dictum 


est, Deum adverbia, non verba remunerare; nempe eos qui fortiter et juste, 
non autem gui fortia ct justa operatur (Salmeron in Denton). 


Ix. 25] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 195 


hast proved thyself to me a perfect athlete, and hast been deemed 
worthy of prizes and wreaths (BpaBelwv xat oreddvwv), while 
Virtue presides over the games and holds forth to thee rewards 
of victory.” Even Pindar has not succeeded in making the 
wreath of glory af@apros: the victors in the games are not those 
who are remembered in history. Von solum corona, sed etiam 
memoria ejus pertt (Beng.). The ovy is independent of the pér, 
which anticipates the following d€ (contrast vi. 4, 7); ‘they 
verily,’ or ‘they of course, in order to receive a perishable 
crown.’ 

Hpets S€ dpOaptov. The exact expression is not found else- 
where in N.T., but we have dpapavtivoy ths d0&ys orédavov 
(1 Pet. v. 4), where ‘made of immortelles’ is perhaps the mean- 
ing rather than ‘which fadeth not away’: see Bigg ad doc. But 
‘amaranth’ and ‘immortelles’ are flowers that do not fade, so 
that the meaning is much the same. Elsewhere we have rov 
orépavoy THs Cwns (Jas. 1. 12; Rev. il. 10), 6 ris dixacordvys 
atépavos (2 Tim. iv. 8). In all these places, as here, it is a 
crown of victory that is meant, rather than a royal crown, 
diadnua (Rev. xii. 3, xix. 12; Isa. lxii. 3; 1 Esdr. iv. 30; 1 Mac. 
Xl. 13, xill. 32). The contrast between #éaptdés and adOaprtos 
occurs in'r Pet. i. 23. In LXX of Zech. vi. 14 we have 6 8 
otépavos éorat Tois vrouevovew: but more to the point is the 
description of Virtue in Wisd. iv. 2, év TO aidve otepavnopodca 
Toprrevel, TOY TOV dyidytwv GOrAwv ayOva viknoaga. The figure is 
frequent in 4 Mac. 

Lightfoot (St Paul and Seneca) quotes from Seneca (Z/. Aor. 
- Ixxvili. 16) a remarkable parallel; ‘“‘What blows do athletes 
receive in their face, what blows all over their body. Yet they 
bear all the torture from thirst of glory. Let us also overcome 
all things, for our reward is not a crown or a palm branch or 
the trumpeter proclaiming silence for the announcement of our 
name, but virtue and strength of mind and peace acquired 
ever after.” 

Epictetus also (vs. iii. 21) has a fine passage on the 
qualifications and responsibilities of teachers; “The thing is 
great, it is mystical, not a common thing, nor is it given to every 
man. But not even wisdom perhaps is enough to enable a man 
to take care of youths: a man must have a certain readiness and 
fitness for this purpose ; and above all things he must have God 
to advise him to occupy this office (vv. 16, 17; vii. 40), as God 
advised Socrates to occupy the place of one who confutes error. 
Why then do you act at hazard in things of the greatest import- 
ance? Leave it to those who are able to do it, and to do it 
well.” And again (ili. 22), ‘“‘ He who without God attempts so 
great a matter, is hateful to God,” 


196 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IX. 26, 27 


26. éy» roivwy. Instead of going on with his exhortation to 
others, he looks to himself. Ae cannot dispense with painful 
effort. ‘I for my part, therefore, am so running, as one with no 
uncertain course.’ He knew the goal quite well, and he knew 
the road which led to it (Gal. ii. 2). Here otrws anticipates as 
(iv. 1), which adds weight to the view that in v. 24 otras 
anticipates iva. But otrws tpéxw does not make it probable that 
ovrws tpéxere is indicative. To render ot« ddjAws ‘not without 
certainty of reaching the goal’ makes it almost contradict the 
fear expressed in py tws addxiwos yévwpa. Scio guod petam et 
guomodo (Beng.) is better. In N.T., rotvwy generally begins a 
sentence (see on Luke xx. 25 and cf. Heb. xiii. 13): St Paul 
has the usual classical order (cf. Wisd. i. 11, viii. 9). Nowhere 
else in the Bible is déyAws found: but see 2 Mac. vii. 34; 
Phil. iii. 14. 

ottws muxtedw. ‘I so box as smiting not the air.’ It is 
unlikely that he means ‘I do not smite the azz, but I beat my 
dody, in which case pov 76 cGua would have preceded trumalu, 
and it is rash to say that ov« negatives dépa, because the negative 
of dépwv would have been py. We may regard otx dépa dépwv as 
one term, ‘no air-smiter’: he uses his fists as one in deadly 
earnest, and does not miss: he plants his blow. And ov with 
participles still survives in N.T., where the writer feels “that the 
proper negative for a statement of downright fact is ov.” 


There are eleven other instances in Paul: four in 2 Cor. iv. 8, 9; two 
in a quotation in Gal. iv. 27 ; one each in Rom. ix. 25; Gal. iv. 8; Phil. 
iil, 3; Col. ii. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 4. See also Matt. xvii. 11; Luke vi. 42; 
John x. 12; Acts vil. 5, xxvi. 22, xxviii. 17, 19; Heb. xi. 1, 35; 1 Pet. 
1. 8 (see Hort), and a quotation in ii. 10. J. H. Moulton (G~. i. p. 231) 
gives numerous illustrations from papyri, and concludes with a remark 
which applies to this passage. ‘‘ The closeness of the participle to the 
indicative in the kinds of sentence found in this list makes the survival of 
ov natural.” See Blass, § 75. 5. 

‘Beating the air,’ whether literally or metaphorically, is common in 
literature. Virgil’s Dares (den. Vv. 377), verberat ictibus auras, and 
Entelius vires in ventum effudit (446) may occur to any one; also 
ventosgue lacesstt ictibus (xii. 105; Geor. iii. 233). Ovid, Afet. vii. 786, 
vacuos exercet in aera morsus. Valerius Flaccus, Arg. iv. 302, vacuas 
agit inconsulta per auras brachia. Hom. //, xx. 446, tpis SHépa rive 
Bateiav. Cf. also els dépa adeiv (xiv. 9). But we are not to under- 
stand the Apostle as speaking of practising boxing: both tpéxw and 
a refer to the actual contest. We see the close of it in 2 Tim. 
iv. 7, 8. 


27. Gd’ brwmdfw ... Soukaywyd. ‘But I bruise my body 
black and blue and lead it along as a bond-servant.’ The 
renderings of izwrdfw (lit. give a black eye by hitting 70 
trwmuov) are various ; castigo (Vulg.), ividum facto (d), contundo 
(Beza), swdigo (Calv.). See on Luke xviii. 5, Where Vulg. has 


IX. 27] GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE 197 


sugillo.* Itis perhaps too much to say that St Paul regards his 
body as an antagonist. Rather, it is something which becomes 
a bad master, if it is not made to be a good servant. It is like 
the horses in a chariot race, which must be kept well in hand by 
whip and rein if the prize is to be secured. The Apostle was 
no Gnostic, regarding the body as incurably evil, and here he 
says g@za and not cdpé. But the body must be made the dodAos of 
the spirit. Nowhere else in the Bible does dovAaywyé occur: cf. 
dovAlow in Rom, vi. 18, 22. The purpose of dovAaywyd is rot 
pyxére SovAeve TH duaptia (Rom. vi. 6). Ignatius recalls what 
follows (Zva//. 12). See Lietazmann, Greek Papyri, p. 6. 

py Tws GAAois Kynpgas abtos Gddkipos yévwnar. The thought 
of possible failure, which is just discernible in v. 23, is here 
expressed with full distinctness, and the metaphor of contests in 
the games perhaps still continues. There was a xpvé at the 
games who announced the coming contest and called out the 
competitors: “Then our herald, in accordance with the prevail- 
ing practice, will first summon the runner” (Plat. Zaw/s, viii. p. 
833). This the Apostle had done in preaching the Gospel ; he 
had proclaimed, ovrws tpéxere, iva xatadaByre. But he was not 
only the herald to summon competitors and teach them the 
conditions of the contest ; he was a competitor himself. How 
tragic, therefore, if one who had instructed others as to the rules 
to be observed for winning the prize, should himself be rejected 
for having transgressed them!+ Excepting Heb. vi. 8, addxnos 
is found only in Paul: 2 Cor. xill. 5-7; Rom. i. 28; Tit. i. 16; 
2 Tim. ili. 8: doxcuos also (xi. 19) is mainly Pauline. Manifestly 
exclusion from the contest, as not being qualified, is not the 
meaning ; he represents himself as running and fighting: it is 
exclusion from the prize that is meant.{ He might prove to be 
disqualified. His effective preaching and his miracles (x. 9-11, 
xiv. 18, 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Rom. xv. 18, 19; Gal. iii. 5) will 
avail nothing if he has broken the rules of the course (see on 
Matt. vii. 22, 23). J” guo monentur omnes, ut timendo sperent et 
sperando timeant, qguatenus spes foveat laborantes et timor incitet 
negligentes (Atto). lta certus est de praemio, ut timeat illud 
amittere ; et ita metuit amittere, ut certus sit de eo(Herv.). Potest 


* Cf. Cic. Zusc. ii. 17, Inde pugiles caestibus contust ne ingemiscunt 
quidem, gladiatores quas plagas perferunt, accipere plagam malunt quam 
turpiter vitare. 

+ ‘There is one that is wise and teacheth many, and yet is unprofitable to 
his own soul’ (Ecclus. xxxvii. 19), pic® cogisrhvy boris obx abrg codds 
(Menander). 

+ There was a herald who proclaimed the victors, and was himself crowned 
for his services. Nero proclaimed his own success at the games, and thus 
competed with the heralds. Victorem se ipse pronunciabat: qua de causa et 
praeconio ubique contendit (Suet. Nero, 24). 


198 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 1-13 


etiam conjungi cum superiore dicto, in hunc modum ; Ne Evangelio 
defrauder, cujus alii mea opera fiunt participes (Calv.). 
imwmdtw (NA BC D* 17) is to be preferred to tromd{w(F GK LP), 
irwmétw (D*), or iroméfw (22). ‘Keep under’ (AV.) is from tremdtu. 
For oGya F has oréua. For dddxipos, reprobus (Vulg.), ~ejectaneus (Beza). 
Schmiedel suspects vv. 24-27 as an interpolation. 


X. 1-XI. 1. THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED. 


The fear expressed in ix. 27 suggests the case of the 
Israelites, who, through want of self-control, lost the promised 
prize. They presumed on their privileges, and fell into idolatry, 
which they might have resisted (1-13). This shows the danger 
of idolatry: and idol-feasts are really idolatry, as the parallels of 
the Christian Eucharist and of the Jewish sacrifices show. Idol- 
feasts must always be avoided (14-22). Idol-meats need not 
always be avoided, but only when the fact that they have been 
sacrificed to idols is pointed out by the scrupulous (23-xi. 1). 


X. 1-18. Take warning from the fall of our fathers in 
the wilderness. Distrust yourselves. Trust in God. 


1The risk of being rejected is real. Our ancestors had 
extraordinary advantages, such as might seem to ensure success. 
They were all of them protected by the cloud, and they all 
passed safely through the sea, 2and all pledged themselves to 
trust in Moses by virtue of their trustful following of the cloud 
and their trustful march in the sea; %allate the same supernatural 
food, *and all drank the same supernatural drink ; for they used 
to drink from a supernatural Rock which attended them, and the 
Rock was really a manifestation of the Messiah. 5 Yet, in spite 
of these amazing advantages, the vast majority of them frustrated 
the good purpose of God who granted these mercies. This is 
manifest ; for they were overthrown by Him in the wilderness. 

® Now all these experiences of theirs happened as examples 
which we possess for our guidance, to warn us against lusting 
after evil things, just as those ancestors of ours actually did. 
"And so you must not fall into idolatry, as some of them fell ; 
even as it stands written, The people sat down to eat and to 
drink, and rose up to sport. 8%And let us not be led on to 
commit fornication, as some of them committed, and died in a 
single day, 23,000 of them. And let us not strain beyond all 


Xx. 1] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 199 


bounds the Lord’s forbearance, as some of them strained it, and 
were destroyed, one after another, by serpents. 1°Nor yet 
murmur ye, which is just what some of them did, and were 
destroyed forthwith by the destroying angel. 1! Now all these 
experiences by way of example occurred one after another to 
them, and they were recorded with a view to admonishing us, 
unto whom the ends of the ages, with their weight of authority, 
have come down. Therefore if, like our forefathers, you think 
that you are standing securely, beware lest self-confidence cause 
you, in like manner, to fall. 1’ And you can avoid falling. No 
temptation has taken you other than a man can withstand. Yes, 
you may trust God: He will not let you be tempted beyond your 
strength. While He arranges the temptation to brace your 
character, He will also arrange the necessary way of escape, and 
the certainty that He willl do this will give you strength to 
endure. 


1. OF bekw . . . ABeApol. See on xii. 1. The yap shows the 
connexion with what precedes: ‘Failure through lack of self- 
discipline is not an imaginary peril: if you lack it, your great 
spiritual gifts will not save you from disaster.’ * 

ot matépes Hav. Just as Christ spoke of the ancestors of the 
Jews as ‘your fathers’ (Matt. xxiil. 32; Luke xi. 47; John vi. 
49), so the Apostle calls them ‘our fathers’: some members of 
the Church of Corinth were Jews, and the expression, was literally 
true of them, as of St Paul. But he may mean that the Israelites 
were the spiritual ancestors of all Christians. In Gal. vi. 16 
‘the Israel of God’ means the whole body of believers. ‘Clem. 
Rom. (Cor. 60) uses tots zatpaow ypov in the same sense, and 
speaks to the Corinthians of Jacob (4), and Abraham (31) as 
0 zatnp Hav. See on Rom. iv. t. 

mdvtes. The emphatic repetition in each clause marks the 
contrast with otx év rots tAetoow (7. 5). All, without exception, 
shared these great privileges, but not even a majority (in fact 
only two) secured the blessing which God offered them. No 
privilege justifies a sense of security: privilege must be used 
with fear and trembling. 

iwd thy vepéAnv. ‘Under the cloud’ which every one 
remembers (Exod. xiil. 21, 22, xiv. 19, 24, xl. 38; etc.). The 


* The ‘ Moreover’ of AV. is from a false reading 5¢ (8&* K L, Syrr.): the 
evidence for ydp is overwhelming. It introduces further justification of his 
demand that they should imitate him in his forbearance and Entsagung. 
The od 6. tpas ayy. (xii. 1; 2Cor. i. 8; Rom. i. 13; 1 Thess. iv. 13) 
implies no reproach: contrast ovx oléare (iii. 16, v. 6, vi. 2, etc.), 


200 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 1-3 


acc. perhaps indicates movement. They marched with the 
cloud above them.* The pillar of fire is not mentioned, as 
less suitable for the figurative ¢famricavro which follows: 
Wisd. xix. 7. 


2. cis T3v Mwiioqv €B. ‘They received baptism unto Moses,’ 
as a sign of allegiance to him and trust in him; or ‘into Moses,’ 
as a pledge of union with him. Comparison with baptism ‘into 
Christ’ (Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal. iii. 27) is suggested, and it is implied 
that the union with Moses which was the saving of the Israelites 
was in some way analogous to the union with Christ which was 
the salvation of the Corinthians. Throughout the paragraph, 
the incidents are chosen from the Pentateuch with a view to 
parallels with the condition of the Corinthian Christians. The 
Israelites had had a baptism into Moses, just as the Corinthians 
had had a baptism into Christ. For a contrast between Christ 
and Moses, see Heb. iii. 1-6. With the aor. mid. compare 
arreXovoacbe, vi. 11 ; with the eds, Acts xix. 3. 

év ri vededn kai ev tH Oaddoon. Both cloud and sea 
represent “the element in which their typical baptism took 
place.” To make the cloud the Holy Spirit and the sea the water 
is forced and illogical ; both are material and watery elements, and 
both refer to the water in baptism. In what follows it is the 
material elements in the Eucharist which are indicated. 


Editors are divided between ¢8amricavro (B K L P) and éBSarrlc@ynoav 
(SN ACDEFG). But the latter looks like a correction to the expression 
which was generally used of Christian baptism (i. 13, 15, xil. 13; etc.). 
iy yi ni 


3. 1d adits Bpdpa mveupatixdy. The manna which typified the 
bread in the Eucharist (Jn. vi. 31, 32) was ‘spiritual’ as being 
of supernatural origin, dpros dyyéAwv (Ps. Ixxvill. 25), ayyeAwv 
tpopy (Wisd. xvi. 20). In all three passages, as here and Neh. 
ix. 15, 20, the aorist is used throughout ;—quite naturally, of an 
act which is past, and the repetition of which is not under 
consideration. It is possible that mvevyarixoy also means that 
“the immediate relief and continuous supply of their bodily 
needs tended to have an effect upon their spirit; that is, to 
strengthen their faith” (Massie). Jsrvaelitis, una cum cibo corporis, 
alimentum animarum datum est (Beng.). Others take it as 
meaning that the manna and the water had a spiritual or 
allegorical meaning. It is remarkable that St Paul chooses the 
manna and the rock, and not any of the Jewish sacrifices, as 


* Onkelos paraphrases Deut. xxxiii. 3 ; ‘‘ With power He brought them 
out of Egypt, they were led under Thy cloud ; they journeyed according to 
Thy word.” Onkelos is said to have been, like St Paul, a disciple of 
Gamaliel, Cf. Ps. cv. 30, 


X. 3, 4} THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 201 


parallels to the Eucharist. In class. Grk. tua is more common 
than 7opa. 


WH. bracket the first 76 a’ré, which 8*, Aeth. omit, while A C* omit 
avrté: but 70 atré is very strongly attested (N° BC? DEF GK LP, Latt.). 
MSS. vary between 7rv. Bp. ép. (N* BC P), Bp. wv. ép. (RSDEFGKL), 
and mv. éd. Bp. (A 17). A omits the second a’ré, and again there is 
difference as to the order; mv. ém. méua (NABCP), wéua mv. en. 
(DERG KE). 

4. €ivov yap €k mv. GkodouBodons métpas. ‘For they used to 
drink from a spiritual rock accompanying them,’ or ‘from a 
spiritual accompanying rock.’ The change to the imperfect is 
here quite intelligible: they habitually made use of a source 
which was always at hand. It is not so easy to determine the 
thought which lies at the back of this statement. That the 
wording of the passage has been influenced by the Jewish legend 
about a rock following the Israelites in their wanderings and 
supplying them with water, is hardly doubtful; but that the 
Apostle believed the legend is very doubtful. In its oldest form, 
the legend made the well of Beer (Num. xxi. 16f.) follow the 
Israelites ; afterwards it was the rock of Kadesh (Num. xx. 1 f.) 
which did so, or a stream flowing from the rock. St Paul seems 
to take up this Rabbinic fancy and give it a spiritual meaning. 
The origin of the allusion is interesting, but not of great import- 
ance: further discussion by Driver (Z-xfoszfor, 3rd series, ix. pp. 
15 f.); Thackeray, pp. 195, 204 f.; Selbie (Hastings, DJA. art. 
*Rock’); Abbott (Zhe Son of Man, pp. 648 f., 762). 

Of much more importance is the unquestionable evidence of 
the Apostle’s belief in the pre-existence of Christ. He does not 
say, ‘And the rock zs Christ,’ which might mean no more than, 
‘And the rock is a type of Christ,’ but, ‘And the rock was 
Christ.’ In Gal. iv. 24, 25 he uses the present tense, Hagar and 
Sarah ‘ave two covenants,’ 7.e. represent them, are typical of 
them. Similarly, in the interpretation of parables (Matt. xiii. 
19-23, 37-38) we have ‘is’ throughout. The jv implies that 
Christ was the source of the water which saved the Israelites 
from perishing of thirst ; there was a real Presence of Christ in 
the element which revived their bodies and strengthened their 
faith. The comment of Herveius, Sic solet logui Scriptura, res 
significantes tangam illas quae significantur appellans, is true, but 
inadequate; it overlooks the difference between éore and 7p. 
We have an approach to this in Wisd. xi. 4, where the Israelites 
are represented as calling on the Divine Wisdom in their thirst, 
and it is Wisdom which grants the water. Philo (Quod deterius 
potiori, p. 176) speaks of the Divine Wisdom as a solid rock 
which gives imperishable sustenance to those who desired it ; 
and he then goes on to identify the rock with the manna. The 


202 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 4-6 


pre-existence of Christ is implied in érraxevoev (2 Cor. viii. 9), 
in égaréorerAev 6 Meds Tov vidv adrov (Gal. iv. 4), and in 6 Weds tov 
éavtod viov méuas (Rom. vili. 3). Cf. Phil. il. 5, 6, and see 
Jiilicher, Paulus u. Jesus, p. 31; J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, 
p. 64; Walther, Pauli Christentum Jesu Evangelium, p. 24. 
Justin (Z77y. 114) probably had this passage in his mind when 
he wrote of dying for the name tHs KaAjs rérpas, kat Cav vdwp 
rats xapdias Bpvovans, kat wotilovans tovs BovAopévovs tO THs 
Lwns towp meiv. By the statement that the life-saving rock was 
a manifestation of the power of Christ, present with the Israelites, 
the Apostle indicates that the legend, at which he seems to 
glance in dxoAovfovens, is not to be believed literally. What 
clearly emerges is that, as the Israelites had something anal- 
ogous to Baptism, so also they had something analogous to the 
Eucharist ; and this is the only passage in N.T. in which the 
two sacraments are mentioned together. 


MSS. vary between 7 mérpa de (& B D**), 7 6¢ wétpa (AC D? K LP), 
and wérpa 6é (F G). 


5. Gd’ odk ev Tots TAEloaty adTay nUSdKyoev 6 Oeds. ‘ Howbeit, 
not with most of them was God well pleased.’ Although a// of 
them had great blessings (and, in particular, those which re- 
sembled the two sacraments which the Corinthian Church 
enjoyed), there were very few in whom God’s gracious purpose 
respecting them could be fulfilled. In ot« év rots wAeloow we 
have a mournful understatement: only two, Caleb and Joshua, 
entered the Promised Land (Num. xiv. 30-32). A// the rest, 
thousands in number, though they entered the lists, were dis- 
qualified, décxior éyévovro (ix. 27), by their misconduct. 

In the Epistles, the evidence as to the augment of eddoxéw varies greatly ; 
in i. 21, evddxnoev is undisputed; here the balance favours 906. (A B* C): 
see WH. 11. Noles p. 162. 

The construction e’6. &v ru is characteristic of LXX and N.T., while 


Polybius and others write ed. tue: but exceptions both ways are found 


(2 Thess, ii, 12; 1 Mac. i. 43). In Matt. xii. 18 and Heb. x. 6 we have 
the accusative. 


kateoTpuOncay yap ev tH epypw. The ydp introduces a justi- 
fication of the previous statement. God cannot have been well 
pleased with them, for xaréotpwoev airois év tH épjpw (Num. 
xiv. 16). They did not die a natural death; their death was 
a judicial overthrow. The verb is frequent in Judges and 
2 Maccabees ; cf. Eur. Her. Fur. to00: nowhere else in N.T. It 
gives a graphic picture, the desert strewn with dead (Heb. iii. 17). 


6. Tadra S€ tumor Hpav eyevnOnoav. ‘Now these things came 
to pass as examples for us to possess.’ The examples were of 
two kinds; Jeneficia guae populus accepit et peccata quae idem 


X. 6, 7: THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 203 


admisit (Beng.). The one kind was being followed; the Cor- 
inthians had sacraments and spiritual gifts: they must take care 
that the other kind was avoided. This is better than under- 
standing tvzo in the sense of types, the Israelites being types 
and the Corinthians antitypes; in which case 4u6v would be the 
subjective genitive.* Origen understands it in the sense of 
examples to warn us. ‘The transition from tvos (rimtw) as ‘the 
mark of a blow’ (John xx. 25) to ‘the stamp of a die,’ and 
thence to any ‘copy,’ is easy. But a ‘copy’ may be a thing to 
be copied, and hence rvros comes to mean ‘ pattern’ or ‘example.’ 
See Milligan on 1 Thess. 1. 7. Deus, tnguit, illos puniendo 
tanquam in tabula nobis severitatem suam repraesentavtit, ut inde 
edoctt timere discamus(Calv.). La potissimum delicta memorantur, 
quae ad Corinthios admonendos pertinent (Beng.). See Weinel, 
St Paul, pp. 58, 59. 

eig TO py etvar. This confirms the view that rvzos does not 
mean ‘types,’ but examples for guidance, ‘to the intent that we 
should not be.’ In saying elvar ériOupyras rather than émOupetv 
he is probably thinking of éxet €@away tov Aadv tov érOvpnrijv 
(Num. xi. 34). The substantive occurs nowhere else in N.T. 

Kaas kdxetvor emeOunnoav. ‘Even as they also lusted.’ The 
kat is not logical, and perhaps ought to be omitted in translation ; 
it means ‘they as well as you,’ which assumes that the Corinthians 
have done what they are here charged not to do: cf. 1 Thess. iv. 
13. Longing for past heathen pleasures may be meant. 


7. pyde eidwdoddtpar yiveobe. ‘Neither become ye idolaters.’ 
The pyé€ is not logical; it puts a species on a level with its genus. 
‘Lusting after evil things’ is the class, of which idolatry and 
fornication are instances; and the pe, ‘nor yet,’ implies that 
idolatry isa new class. It was, however, the most important of 
the special instances, because of its close connexion with the 
Corinthian question. But this is another point in which Greek 
idiom is sometimes rather illogical. We should say ‘ Therefore 
do not become.’ The tives is another understatement, like ovx 
év Tois 7Aeioow: the passage quoted shows that the whole people 
took part in the idolatry. St Paul seems to be glancing at the 
extreme case in viii. 10, of a Christian showing his superior 
yvous by sitting at an idol-banquet in an idol-temple. Such 
conduct does amount to taking part in idolatrous rites. The 
Apostle intimates, more plainly than before, that the danger 
of actual idolatry is not so imaginary as the Corinthians in their 
enlightened emancipation supposed. 

maifew. The quotation is the LXX of Exod. xxxii. 6, and 


* This would imply that the Corinthians were predestined to fall as the 
Israelites did. 


204 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [Xx. 7,8 


we know that the ‘play’ or ‘sport’ included xopot, which Moses 
saw as he drew near.* These dances would be in honour of the 
golden calf, like those of David in honour of the Ark of God, as 
he brought it back (2 Sam. vi. 14). The quotation, therefore, 
indicates an idolatrous banquet followed by idolatrous sport. 

Calvin asks why the Apostle mentions the banquet and the 
sport, which were mere accessories, and says nothing about the 
adoration of the image, which was the essence of the idolatry. - 
He replies that it was in these accessories that some Corinthians 
thought that they might indulge. None of them thought that 
they might go so far as to join in idolatrous worship. 

No doubt éa7ep (SN A B D® L) before yéypazra is to be preferred to ws 
(C D* KP), and perhaps retvy (B* D* F G) to meiv (A B7C D? EK L P): 
miv (N) supports ety. See on ix. 4. 

8. The relationship of idol-worship and fornication is often 
very close, and was specially so at Corinth (Jowett, ‘On the 
Connexion of Immorality and Idolatry,’ Zpp. of St Paul, u. p. 
70). Hence fornication is taken as the second instance of 
lusting after evil things. In the matter of Baal-Peor (Num. xxv. 
1-9), to which allusion is made here, it was the intimacy with 
the strange women which led to participation in the idolatrous 
feasts, not vice versa as the RV. suggests; ‘the people began to 
commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab: for they called 
the people unto the sacrifices of their gods.’ It is remarkable 
that precisely at this point the Apostle changes the form of this 
exhortation and passes from the 2nd pers. (yiveoOe) to the 1st 
(ropvevwpev), thus once more putting himself on a level with his 
readers. But there is nothing in the brief reference to the sins 
of the Israelites to show that, when the Moabite women invited 
the Israelites to the sacrifices of their gods, immoral intercourse 
had preceded the invitation.t In Wisd. xiv. 12 the connexion 
between idolatry and fornication and the consequent destruction 
are pointed out; ’Apyi yap mopveias érivoia cidddAwv, eiperes Se 
avtov dopa Cwis, where the rendering ‘sfiritua/l fornication’ 
(AV.) is unnecessary, and probably incorrect. 

Emeoay [Ld hepa eixoor tpets xtAtddes. Here we have, in the 
most literal sense, POopa Coys. In Num. xxv. 9 the number is 


* Aristoph. Ran. 450, rdv huérepov tpdrov rdv Kaddcxopwrarov malfovres. 
The verb is found nowhere else in N.T. In LXX it is frequent. 

+ But in Num. xxv. we have two different stories combined and somewhat 
confused: vv. I-5 come from one source, vv. 6-18 from another. The 
locality in one case is Shittim, in the other Peor; the god in one case is 
presumably Kemosh the God of Moab, but he is called in both cases the 
Baal of Peor ; the punishment in one case is execution by the judges, in the 
other plagues sent by God; the cause of the evil in one case is Moatite, in 
‘he other Midianite. See Gray, Numbers, pp. 380 f., and cf. the interchange 
of Ishmaelite with Midianite, Gen. xxxvii. 25-36. 


X. 8, 9] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 205 


24,000. St Paul quotes from memory, without verifying, the 
exact number being unimportant. But harmonizers suggest that 
1ooo were slain by the judges; or that 23,000 and 24,000 are 
round numbers for a figure which lay between the two; or that, 
of the 24,000 who died of the plague, 23,000 died on one day.* 
All these suggestions are the result of a ‘weak’ (viii. 9 f., ix. 22) 
theory of inspiration ; and the first does not avoid the charge of 
error, for we are told that ‘those that died by the plague were 
24,000.’ For ézeoav see 1 Chron. xxi. 14. 


For ropvedwpev (8 A B D3 E) and érdpvevoay (252d.) D* F G have éxrrop- 
vevwuev and eferdpvevoay from LXX of Num. xxv. 1. Excepting Jude 7, 
the compound is not found in N.T. érecay (RA BCD* FG P 17) is to 
be preferred to recov (D? K L): see W H. 11. Notes p. 164. 8 AC D?2 
K LP insert é€v before wad: 8* BD* FG, Latt. omit. ‘In one day’ 
augments the terror of the punishment. 


9. pyde exrerpdLopev tov Kiptov. ‘Neither let us sorely tempt 
the Lord,’ try Him out and out, provoke Him to the uttermost, 
till His longsuffering ceases. This the Israelites did by their 
frequent rebellion. It is rather fanciful to connect this with z. 8, 
as v. 8 is connected with v. 7. It is true that “ fornication leads 
to tempting God”; but is that the Apostle’s reason for passing 
from zopvevwpev to exreipdlopev? The compound occurs (in 
quotations from LXX of Deut. vi. 16) Matt. iv. 7; Luke iv. 12; 
also Luke x. 25; in LXX, both of man trying God (Ps. Ixxviii. 
18), and of God trying man (Deut. vili. 2, 16). It implies pro- 
longed and severe testing. See on iii. 18. Here the meaning is 
that God was put to the proof, as to whether He had the will 
and the power to punish. In class. Grk. éxepaoOau is used. 
It is doubtful whether the Apostle is thinking of anything more 
definite than the general frailty and faultiness of the Corinthian 
Christians. Misuse of the gift of tongues (Theodoret) and a 
craving for miracles (Chrysostom) are not good conjectures. 

ind tav Shewy dmwdduvto. ‘Perished day by day by the 
serpents.’ The imperfect marks the continual process, and the 
article points to the well-known story. ‘ Perished’=‘were de- 
stroyed,’ and hence zo is admissible. In class. Grk. S20 is 
used of the agent after an intrans. verb, but it is not very 
frequent in N.T. We have wdcyxew tro, Matt. xvii. 12 and 
1 Thess. ii. 14, where Milligan quotes from papyri, Biav raoxwv 
éxaorote wo ‘Exvcews. See Winer, p. 462. 


We may safely prefer rdv Kiprov (R BCP 17, Aeth. Arm.) to rév 
Xpirév (DEFGKL, Latt.) or rév Gedy (A). No doubt Xpioréy, if 
original, might have been changed to Kvpsov or Oedv because of the diffi- 








* The sud 7pépg increases the horror : omnia ademit Una dies t¢1/festa tibi 
tot praemia vitae (Luct. iii. 9, 11): cf. Rev. xviii. 8, 


206 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS = [X. 10 


culty of supposing that the Israelites in the wilderness tempted Christ. 
On the other hand, either Xpurrév or Oedv might be a gloss to explain 
the meaning of Kvpiuov. Epiphanius says that Marcion substituted Xporrév 
for Kiptov, that the Apostle might not appear to assert the lordship of 
Christ. Whatever may be the truth about this, it is rash to say that 
‘*Marcion was right in thinking that the reading Kvpiov identifies the 
Lord Jehovah of the narrative with the historical Jesus Christ.” It is safer 
to say with Hort on 1 Pet. ii. 3, ‘‘ No such identification can be clearly 
made out in the N.T.” But see on Rom. x. 12, 13. Inthe N.T. 6 Kiépsos 
commonly means ‘our Lord’; but this is by no means always the case, and 
here it almost certainly means Jehovah, as Num. xxi. 4-9 and Ps. Ixxviii. 18 
imply. There seems to be no difference in LXX between Kupios and 
6 Kupios, and in N.T. we can lay down no rule that Kiéjpros means God 
and 6 Kiépios Christ. See Bigg on 1 Pet. i. 3, 25, ii. 3, iii. 15; Nestle, 
Text. Crit. of N.T. p. 307. 

cafes rwes (NABCD*FGP 17) rather than xaOds kal tives 
(DIEKL).  éreipacay (ABD® KL) rather than ééereipacay (& C D* 
FG P17), the latter being an assimilation to éxretpagfwuev. It is more 
difficult to decide between a7W\Xvv7T0 (N A B) and arwdovro (CD EFG 
K LP): but dw@\X\vvro would be more likely to be changed to dmr@dovro 
(vw. 10) than vice versa. 


10. pydé yoyyvfere. Rebellious discontent of any kind is 
forbidden ; and there is nothing said as to the persons against 
whom, or the things about which, murmuring is likely to take 
place. But the warning instance (xa6dzep tuwes) can hardly 
refer to anything but that of the people against Moses and 
Aaron for the punishment of Korah and his company (Num. 
xvi. 41 f.), for we know of no other case in which the murmurers 
were punished with death.* From this, and the return to the 
2nd pers. (yoyyvere),-we may conjecture that the Apostle is 
warning those who might be disposed to murmur against him 
for his punishment of the incestuous person, and for his severe 
rebukes in this letter.t 

imd tod ddo@peutod. Not Satan, but the destroying angel 
sent by God to smite the people with pestilence. The Apostle 
assumes that there was such an agent, as in the slaying of the 
firstborn (rov 6A¢6pevovra, Exod. xii. 23), and in the plague that 
punished David (2 Sam. xxiv. 16; ayyeAos Kupiov égoAcOpevw, 
1 Chron. xxi. 12), and in the destruction of the Assyrians 
(2 Chron. xxxii. 21; Ecclus. xlviii. 21). Cf. Acts xii. 23: Heb. 
xi. 28. Vulg. has ad exterminatore, Calv. a vastatore; in Heb. 
xi. 28 Vulg. has gu vastabat, in Exod. xii. 23 percussor. The 
angelology and demonology of the Jews was confused and 
unstable. Satan is sometimes the destroyer (Wisd. ii. 24). By 
introducing sin he brought men under the power of death ; 


* The murmuring against the report of the spies can hardly be meant, for 
that was punished by the murmurers dying off in the wilderness, not by any 
special destruction (Num. xiv. I, 2, 29). : 

‘+ It is perhaps for this reason that he changes from domep to xabdrep, 
which implies the very closest resemblance, ‘ exactly as.’ 


‘ 


X. 10, 11] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED - 207 


Rom. v. 12; Heb. ii. 14; John vill. 44. Nowhere else in the 
Bible does 6Ao06peurys occur. 


Assimilation has produced four corruptions of the text in this verse : 
yoyyusere (A BC K LP, Vulg. Syrr. Aeth.) has been corrected to yoyyi- 
fwuev (NX DE FG): xaédmep (8 BP) has been corrected to caus (A C D 
EFGKL): KL inserts xal before rwes: and A corrects drd&dovTo to 
amwduvTo. 


11. raéta S€ tumKds ouvéBawey éxetvors. ‘Now these things 
by way of lesson happened one after another to ‘hem’: em- 
phasis on éxetvos. ‘The imperfect sets forth the enumerated 
events as in process of happening; the singular sums them up 
as one series. In v. 6 we had the plural, éyevnOyoav, attention 
being directed to the separate tvzox in vv. I-5 ; moreover, there 
may be attraction to rvmo, Winer, p. 645. 

€ypdgy dé mw. v- Hp. ‘And were written for our admonition,’ 
ne similiter peccantes similia patiamur. The written record was 
of no service to those who had been punished; gud enim 
mortuts prodesset historia? vivis autem quo modo prodesset, nist 
aliorum exemplis admontti resipiscerent? (Caly.). Note the 
change from imperfect to aorist. 

eis ols TA TEAM TOV aidvwv KatdvtTyoev. ‘Unto whom the ends 
of the ages have reached.’ ‘The common meaning of xatavrdw 
in N.T. is ‘reach one’s destination’: see on xiv. 36. The point 
of the statement here is obscure. ‘The ages’ are ‘‘ the successive 
periods in the history of humanity, and perhaps also the parallel 
periods for different nations and parts of the world” (Hort on é7’ 
€axaTov T&v xpover, I Pet. i. 20).* In what sense have the ends 
of these ages reached us as their destination? ‘The ends’ of 
them implies that each one of them is completed and summed 
up; and the sum-total has come down to us for whom it was 
intended. That would seem to mean that we reap the benefit 
of the experience of all these completed ages. Such an inter- 
pretation comes as a fit conclusion to a passage in which the 
Corinthians are exhorted to take the experiences of the Israelites 
as lessons for themselves. /uralis habet vim magnam: omnia 
concurrunt et ad summam veniunt; beneficia et pericula, poenae 
et praemia (Beng. ). 

Or it may mean that the ends of the ages have reached us, 
and therefore we are already in a new age, which is the final 

* The education of the Gentiles went on side by side with the education 
of the Jews, and both streams met in the Christian Church, ‘* The Church 
is the heir of the spiritual training of mankind” (Findlay). The temptation 
to make 7a 7. rv al. singular produced corruptions ; 7 guos fints sacculorum 
devenit (Iren. 1V. xiv. 3), 77 guos fints seculorum obvenit (Aug. De cat. rud, 
3). Tert. preserves the plural; ad nos commonendos, in quos fines aevorum 


decucurrerunt (Marc. v. 7); also Vulg. ; ad correptionem nostram, in quos 
Jines seculorum devenerunt, 


208 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (x. 11-13 


one and will be short (vii. 29: see Westcott on Heb. ix. 26 and 
1 John ii. 18). The interpretation will then be that “the last 
act in the drama of time is begun” (Rutherford), and therefore 
the warnings contained in these examples ought at once to be 
laid to heart. The Day of Judgment is near and may come at 
any moment (xvi. 22); it is madness not to be watchful. 


AV. has ‘ Now all these things,’ and ‘all’ is well supported ; raira dé 
mavra (CK LP, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm.); mdvta 6@ tadra (RN DEF G, 
Aeth.); AB17, Theb. omit mavra: Orig. and Tert. sometimes omit. 
The fact that mdvra is inserted in different positions, and that insertion is 
more intelligible than omission, justifies exclusion. Tumuxds (N ABCKP, 
Vulg. 7 figura) is to be preferred to réma (DEF GL), and cuvéBawev 
(% BC K L) to cvvé8awov (A D EF GL), which looks like assimilation to 
v. 6; also Karivrnxev (N B D* FG) to xarjvtncey (AC D*® KL). 


12,18. The Apostle adds two admonitions: to those who 
are so self-confident that they think that they have no need 
to be watchful; and to those that are so despondent that they 
think that it is useless to struggle with temptation. 


12. “Qore. See on iii. 21. ‘So then, let him that thinketh 
that he is standing securely beware lest he fall’; z.e. fall from 
his secure position and become dddxuyos. The Apostle does 
not question the man’s opinion of his condition; he takes 
the security for granted: but there is danger in feeling secure, 
for this leads to carelessness. Perhaps there is special reference 
to feeling secure against contamination from idol-feasts. It is 
less likely that there is a reference to one who “thinks that 
through the sacrament he ¢fso facto possesses eternal life with 
God.” See Rom. xi. 20, xiv. 4. My totvuy émi tH otdoe ppover 
péya, GAAG pvdarrov tHyv trdow (Chrys.). 

Both AV. and RV. disregard the difference between dare 
here and éw7ep in v. 14, translating both ‘wherefore.’ In 
Phil. ii. 12, AV. has ‘wherefore,’ and RV. ‘so then,’ for dove. 
Vulg. rightly distinguishes, with zfague here and proper quod in 
v. 14. Avwrep indicates more strongly than dore that what 
follows is a reasoned result of what precedes. 


13. metpacpis Spas od etAnpev. An appeal to their past 
experience. Hitherto they have had no highly exceptional, 
superhuman temptations, but only such as commonly assail 
men, and therefore such as a man can endure. The rvzrou just 
mentioned show that others have had similar temptations. 
This ought to encourage them with regard to the future, which 
he goes on to consider. It is reading too much into the verse 
to suppose that Corinthians had been pleading that they must 
go to idol-feasts; otherwise they might be persecuted and 
tempted to apostatize. In three of his letters, however (to the 


mes 13] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 209 


Alexandrians, to the clergy of Samosata, and to Acacius and 
others), Basil applies this text to persecution (Z4/. 139, 219, 256). 
With etAnfpev compare Wisd. xi. 12 ; Luke v. 26, vii. 16, ix. 30. 

motos 8€ 6 Gedy. ‘On the contrary, God is faithful,’ #d est 
verax in hac promisstone, ut sit semper nobiscum (Herv.). Both 
AV. and RV. have ‘but’ for dé. But the opposition is to what 
is negatived in what precedes; this clause continues the en- 
couragement already given. The perfect tense (ovx ciAndev) 
brings us down to the present moment; there never has 
been zreipacpos py avOpemvos. In addition to this there is the 
certainty that God will never prove faithless: est certus custos 
suorum (Calv.). 

ds obk édcer pds. ‘And therefore He will not suffer you to 
be tempted beyond what ye are able to endure.’ This follows 
from His faithfulness, ‘as being one who will not allow,’ etc. 
For a similar use of os see 1 Tim. ii. 4. 

GANG Toujoer K.t.A. ‘But will provide, with the temptation, 
the way of escape also.’ ‘A way to escape’ (AV.) ignores the 
article before éxBaow, ‘the necessary way of escape,’ the one 
suitable for such a difficulty. The ovv and the articles imply 
that temptations and possibilities of escape always go in pairs: 
there is no wetpacpos without its proper é«Baous, for these pairs 
are arranged by God, who permits no unfairness. He knows 
the powers with which He has endowed us, and how much 
pressure they can withstand. He will not leave us to become 
the victims of circumstances which He has Himself ordered 
for us, and impossibilia non jubet. For éxBaow Vulg. has pro- 
ventus; Beza and Calv. (better) exz/ws, which Vulg. has Heb. 
xili. 7; egvessus might be better still. On the history of weipalew 
see Kennedy, Sources, p. 106. As to God’s part in temptation, 
see Matt. vi. 13; 1 Chron. xxi. 1; Job 1. 12, 0965 Exod. xvi. 4; 
Deut. viii. 2; and, on the other-side, Jas. i. 13. 

Tod Stvac8ar smeveyxetv. This rod with the infinitive to 
express purpose or result * is very frequent in Luke (i. 77, 79, 
ii. 24, where see note) and not rare in Paul (Gal. iii. 10; Phil. 
iii. 10; Rom. i. 24, vi. 6, vii. 3, Vill. 12, xl. 8, 10). ‘“Ymrodépew 
means ‘to bear up under,’ ‘to endure patiently’ (2 Tim. iii. 11 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 19; Prov. vi. 33; Ps. lxix. 7; Job ii. 10). Temptation 
is probation, and God orders the probation in such a way ‘that 
ye may be able to endure it.’ The power to endure is given oiv 
7 meipacpo, the endurance is not given; that depends on 


* J. H. Moulton (G7. 1. p. 217) prefers to call this use of rob c. znjfin. 
‘epexegetic,’ and thinks that ‘when Paul wishes to express purpose he uses 
other means.” Bachmann makes Toi d/vac@a the genitive of the substantival 
infinitive, dependent on éxfacw, ‘the escape of being able to bear it’; i.e. 
the éxBacts cousists in the power to endure. 


14 


210 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [x. 14-22 


ourselves. On the liturgical addition to the Prayer, ‘Lead us 
not into temptation which we are not able to bear,’ see Resch, 
Agrapha, pp. 85, 355; Hastings, DA. 1. p. 144. 


Cassian (/nst. v. 16) says that ‘‘some not understanding this testimony 
of the Apostle have read the subjunctive instead of the indicative mood : 
tentatio vos non apprehendat nisi humana” (so Vulg.). The verse is a 
favourite one with Cassian. 

A few texts insert o¥ before dtvacbe and Ureveyxety after it: a few 
insert tuds before or after ireveyxetv: N* ABC D* F L P 17 omit tyas. 


14-22. The Lord’s Supper and the Jewish sacrifices may 
convince you of the fact that to participate in a sacrifictal 
feast 1s to participate in worship. Therefore, avoid all 
idol-feasts, which are a worship of demons. 


14 Ves, God provides escapes from temptations, and so my 
affection for you moves me to urge you to escape from tempta- 
tion to idolatry ; avoid all contact with it. lI appeal to your 
good sense ; you are capable of judging for yourselves whether 
my arguments are sound. 

16 The cup of the blessing, on which we invoke the benediction 
of God in the Lord’s Supper, is it not a means of communion 
in the Blood-shedding of Christ? The bread which we break 
there, is it not a means of communion in the Body of Christ ? 
17 Because the many broken pieces are all one bread, we, 
the assembled many, are all one body; for we, the whole con- 
gregation, have with one another what comes from the one 
bread. 18Here is another parallel. Consider the Israelites, 
as we have them in history with their national ritual. Is it 
not a fact that those Israelites who eat the prescribed sacrifices 
enter into fellowship with the altar of sacrifice, and therefore 
with Him whose altar it is? The altar unites them to one 
another and to Him. !®You ask me what I imply by that. 
Not, of course, that there is any real sacrifice to an idol, or that 
there is any real idol, such as the heathen believe in. ?? But 
I do imply that the sacrifices which the heathen offer they offer 
to demons and to a no-god: and I do not wish you to enter 
into fellowship with the company of demons. *!Is my meaning 
still not plain? It is simply impossible that you should drink 
of a cup that brings you into communion with the Lord and 
of a cup that brings you into communion with demons; that 
you should eat in common with others at the table of the Lord 


x. 14-16] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 211 


and at the table of demons. * Or do we think so lightly of 
this, that we persist in doing just what the Israelites did in the 
wilderness,—provoking the Lord to jealousy by putting Him on 
a level with demons? Are we able, any more than they were, 
to defy Him with impunity ? 


14. Awmwep. Here and viii. 13 only. ‘Wherefore, my 
beloved ones (the affectionate address turns the command into 
an entreaty), flee right away from idolatry.’ Flight is the sure 
exBaors in all such temptations, and they have it in their own 
power: all occasions must be shunned. They must not de- 
liberately go into temptation and then expect deliverance. They 
must not try how near they can go, but how far they can fly. 
fugite idolatriam: omnem utique et totam (Tert. De Cor. 10). 
This might seem a hard saying to some of them, especially after 
expecting a wide measure of liberty, and he softens it with 
ayaryrot pov. It is his love for them that makes him seem to 
be severe and compels him to lay down this rule. Cf. xv. 58; 
2 Cor. vii. 1; Phil. ii, 12, etc. St Paul more commonly has 
the simple accusative after gevyew (vi. 18; 1 Tim. vi. 11; 
2 Tim. ii. 22), and it is not clear that devyewv do, which is more 
common in Gospels and Rey., is a stronger expression. ‘The 
accusative would not have implied that the Corinthians were 
already involved in idolatry: that would require ék. 


15. as ppovipos. Cf. iii, 1; Eph. v. 28. There is no 
sarcasm, as in 2 Cor. xi. 19. ‘They have plenty of intelligence, 
and can see whether an argument is sound or not, so that pauca 
verba sufficiunt ad judicandum (Beng.). Yet there is perhaps 
a gentle rebuke in the compliment. They ought not to need 
any argument in a matter, de guo judicium ferre non erat 
difficile (Calv.). Resch, Agrapha, p. 127. c 

kpivate Speis 6 pnp. The tyets is emphatic, and the change 
from A€yw to dypé should be marked in translation, although 
it may be made merely for variety ; ‘Judge for yourse/ves what 
I declare.’ Vulg. has /oguor and dico; in Rom. iii. 8 atunt 
(pact) and dicere (A€yew). 


16. Td motypiov tis eddoylas. ‘The cup of the blessing,’ 
i.e. over which a benediction is pronounced by Christian 
ministers, as by Christ at the Last Supper. It does not mean 
‘the cup which brings a blessing,’ as is clear from what follows. 
We know too little about the ritual of the Passover at the time 
of Christ to be certain which of the Paschal cups was the cup 
of the Institution. There was probably a Paschal ‘cup of the 
thanksgiving’ or ‘blessing,’ and the expression here used may 


212 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [x. 16 


come from that, but the addition of ‘which we bless’ in our 
Christian assemblies shows that the phrase is used with a fuller 
meaning. Cf. zoryjpiov ocwrnpiov (Ps. cxv. 4). EvAoyetv and 
ebyapioreiv express two aspects of the same action: see on xi. 24. 
The plurals, etAoyodpev and xAdpev, do not necessarily mean 
that the whole congregation took part in saying the benedic- 
tion or thanksgiving and in breaking the bread, except so 
far as the minister represented the whole body. The Apostle 
is speaking of Christian practice generally, without going into 
details. See notes on xi. 23-25, where he does give some 
details, and cf. Acts ii. 42, 46. Evans enlarges on the ed in 
evAoyotpev, ‘over which we speak the word for good, and con- 
cludes, “the bread and wine, after their benediction or consecra- 
tion, are not indeed changed in their nature, but become in 
their use and their effects the very body and blood of Christ 
to the worthy receiver.” 

obxi Kowwvia €otly T. aip. Tt. Xptotod ; ‘Is it not communion 
in the Blood of Christ?’ The RV. margin has ‘participation 
in.’ But ‘partake’ is peréxew: kowwvely is ‘to have a share 
in’; therefore xowwvia is ‘fellowship’ rather than ‘ participation.’ 
This is clear from what follows respecting the bread. It is 
better not to put any article before ‘communion’ or ‘ fellow- 
ship.’ AV. has ‘the,’ which is justifiable, for xowwvia, being 
the predicate, does not need the article. RV. has ‘a,’ which 
is admissible, but is not needed. Strangely enough, Vulg. 
varies the translation of this important word; communicatio 
sanguinis, but partictpatio corporis : communio (Beza) is better 
than either. As kowwvety is ‘to give a share to’ as well as ‘to 
have a share in,’ communicatio is a possible rendering of cowwvia. 
The difference between ‘participation’ and ‘fellowship’ or 
‘communion’ is the difference between having a share and 
. having the whole. In Holy Communion each recipient has a 
share of the bread and of the wine, but he has the whole of 
Christ: ob yap TO peréyew povoy kal petarAapBdvey GdAd 7H 
évodaGat kowovdpev (Chrys.).* 

Here, as in Luke xxii. 17, and in the Dedache 9, the cup 
is mentioned first, and this order is repeated v. 21; but in the 
account of the Institution (xi. 23) the usual order is observed. 
This may be in order to give prominence to the Blood-shedding, 
the characteristic act of Christ’s sacrifice, and also. to bring the 


* Ellicott says that this distinction between peréxew and xowwveiv cannot 
be substantiated. All that can properly be said is that xowwyveiv implies more 
distinctly the idea of a community with others”: and that is sufficient. See 
Cremer, p. 363. Lightfoot points out the caprice of AV. in translating 
xowwvol first ‘ partakers’ and then ‘have fellowship,’ while xowwvla is ‘com- 
munion,’ and peréxew is ‘to be partakers’ (On Revision, p. 39). 


x. 16] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 213 


eating of the bread into immediate juxtaposition with the eating 
at heathen sacrifices. As regards construction, 7d zorjpiov and 
Tov aprov are attracted to the case of the relatives which follow. 

dv kX@pev. It is clear from edyapioryoas (xi. 24) that St Paul 
does not mean to limit edAoyoduev to the cup: there was a 
benediction or thanksgiving over this also. There is no action 
with regard to the cup which would be parallel to breaking the 
bread, and therefore we cannot say that «Ader is equivalent 
to, or a substitute for, edAoyoduev. Nor would ‘aivoyev corre- 
spond to xAéuev”: eating would correspond to drinking, and 
both are assumed. The transition from the Body of Christ to 
the Church, which in another sense is His Body, is easily made, 
but it is not made here: that comes in the next verse. 

It is evident from xi. 18f. that the mention of the cup 
before the bread here does not imply that in celebrating the 
rite the cup ever came first. Here he is not describing the rite, 
but pointing out a certain similarity between the Christian rite 
and pagan rites. Ramsay (Zxf. Zimes, March 1910, p. 25%) 
thinks that he names the cup first “partly because the more 
important part of the pagan ceremony lay in the drinking of 
the wine, and partly because the common food in the pagan 
ceremony was not bread, but something eaten out of a dish,” 
which was one and the same for all. ‘To this we may add that 
in the heathen rite it seems to have been usual for each wor- 
shipper to bring his own loaf. The worshippers drank out of 
the same cup and took sacrificial meat out of the same dish, 
but they did not partake of the same bread: ¢fs dpros was not 
true of them (Hastings, DZ. v. p. 132 b). This is said to be 
“the usual practice of simple Oriental meals, in which each 
guest has his own loaf, though all eat from a common dish.” 
There was therefore less analogy between the heathen bread 
and the Christian bread than between the heathen cup and the 
Christian cup, and for this reason also the cup may have been 
mentioned first. For this reason again he goes on (v. 17) to 
point out the unity implied in the bread of the Christian rite. 
The single loaf is a symbol and an instrument of unity, a unity 
which obliterates the distinction between Jew and Gentile and 
all social distinctions. ‘There is only one Body, the Body of 
Christ, the Body of His Church, of which each Christian is a 
member. ‘That is the meaning of ‘This is My Body.’ 

The main point to which the Apostle is leading his readers, 
is that to partake ceremonially of the Thing Sacrificed is to 
become a sharer in the Sacrificial Act, and all that that involves. 


It is not easy to decide whether the first éortv should follow xowwvla 
(ABP, Copt. Arm.) or Xpirod (RCDEFGKLP, Latt.), Probably 
the latter order arose through assimilation to the position of the second 


214 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 16,17 


éorw. A anda few other authorities put the second éo7w after the second 
xowwvla, probably for assimilation. N BC DF KL P have the second éorw 
after Xporod. For the second Xpisrod, D* F, Latt. have Kuplov, 


17. ot els dpros, €v cdma ot woddol eopev. It is not difficult 
to get good sense out of these ambiguous words, but it is not 
easy to decide how they should be translated. Fortunately 
the meaning is much the same, whichever translation is adopted. 
The 6r may = ‘because’ and introduce the protasis, of which 
tv capa... éeopev is the apodosis; ‘Because there is one 
bread, one body are we the many,’ #.e. Because the bread, 
although broken into many pieces, is yet one bread, we, although 
we are many, are one body. Vulg. seems to take it in this way ; 
guoniam unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus.* The awkward- 
ness of this is that there is no particle to connect the statement 
with what precedes. The Syriac inserts a ‘therefore’; ‘as, 
therefore, that bread is one, so are we one body.’ Or (better) 
drt may = ‘for’ (AV.), or ‘seeing that’ (RV.), and be the 
connecting particle that is required; ‘Seeing that we, who 
are many, are one bread, one body’ (RV.). But, however 
we unravel the construction, we have the parallel between 
many fragments, yet one bread, and many members, yet one 
body. See Lightfoot on Ign. Zp. 20, where we have aves 
cuvepxerbe ev pd mister Kai évi ‘Inood Xpict@ followed by &va 
dptov k\avtes. See also Philad. 4. The Apostle’s aim is to show 
that all who partake of the one bread have fellowship with Christ. 
This is plain from what follows. See Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, 
p- 496. 

ol yap mdvtes €k Tod évds aprou petéxonev. ‘For we all have 
our share from the one bread,’ 7.e. the bread which is the means 
of fellowship with Christ. Nowhere else have we peréxew with 
ék: the usual construction is the simple genitive (21, ix. 12), 
which may be understood (30, ix. 10); but compare ék in xi. 28. 
The meaning seems to be that we all have a share which is taken 
from the one bread, and there is possibly a suggestion that the 
one bread remains after all have received their shares. All have 
communion with the Body, but the Body is not divided. The 
idea of Augustine, that the one loaf composed of many grains of 
corn is analogous to the one body composed of many members, 
however true in itself, is foreign to this passage. We have the 
same idea in the Didache 9; “ As this broken bread was scattered 
(as grain) upon the mountains and gathered together became one, 
etc.” “ How the sacramental bread becomes in its use and effects 
the body of Christ, is a thing that passes all understanding: 


* . . . . 
Quoniam unus est panis, unum corpus nos, qui multi sumus (Beza). 


Weil Ein Brod es ist das wir brechen, sind Ein Leib wir, die Vielen 
(Schmiedel). 


a 17-19] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 215 


the manner is a mystery” (Evans). He adds that of wdvres 
= ‘all as one,’ ‘all the whole congregation.’ It is remarkable 
how St Paul insists upon the socia/ aspect of both the sacra- 
ments ; ‘For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body’ 
(xil. 13). 

18. ‘The sacrifices of the Jews furnish a similar argument 
to show that participation in sacrificial feasts is communion with 
the unseen. 

Bdérete Tov “lopahd Kata odpxa. ‘Look at Israel after the 
flesh,’ the actual Israel of history. Christians are a new Israel, 
Israel after the Spirit, rov “IopayA tod @covd (Gal. vi. 16, iii. 29 ; 
Phil. iii. 3), whether Jews or Gentiles by birth. 

ovx ot ecOlovres x.t.4. ‘Are not they who eat the sacrifices 
in fellowship with the altar?’ They are in fellowship with the 
altar, and therefore with the unseen God, whose altar it is. To 
swear by the Temple is to swear by Him that dwelleth therein 
(Matt. xxiii. 21), and to have fellowship with the altar is to have 
fellowship with Him whose sacrifices are offered thereon. As 
in the Holy Communion, therefore, so also in the Temple 
services, participating in sacrificial feasts is sacrificial fellowship 
with an unseen power, a power that is Divine. There is some- 
thing analogous to this in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen ; 
but in that case the unseen power is not Divine. See Lev. 
vii. 6, 14, vi. 26, and Westcott on Heb. xiii. 10. 


19. ti odv gypr; ‘What then do I declare?’ This refers 
back to the ¢ynyi in v. 15 and guards against apparent incon- 
sistency with viii. 4. ‘Do I declare that a thing sacrificed to an 
idol is something, or that an idol is something?’ In neither 
case was there reality. The cidwAo6vrov professed to be an 
offering made to a god, and the ecidwAov professed to represent 
a god. Both were shams. The cidwAo@vtov was just a piece 
of flesh and nothing more, and its being sacrificed to a being 
that had no existence did not alter its quality; the meat was 
neither the better nor the worse for that. The etSwAov was just 
so much metal, or wood, or stone, and its being supposed to 
represent a being that had no existence did not alter its value; 
it was neither more nor less useful than before. As a sacrifice 
to a god, and as the image of a god, the eidwAo@vrov and the 
edwXov had no reality, for there was no such being as Aphrodite 
or Serapis. Nevertheless, there was something behind both, 
although not what was believed to be there. 


AV., following KL, Syrr., has ‘idol’ first ; and, without authority, 
inserts the article, ‘the idol.’ NBCD EP, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. have 
6rt eldwddAuTOV . . . OTe eldwAov. The accentuation of Tisch., 671 e/dwd6- 
Burov te got, # Ore eldwXdv te Eorw, is probably wrong: better, ri éorw 


216 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 19, 20 


in each case; ‘that it is something’ (a/iguid) is the meaning, not ‘that any 
such thing exists.’ The omission of # dre el6wdv rb éorw (N* AC*) is 
no doubt owing to homoeoteleuton, 7/ éotw to rl éorw. 


20. @AN ore & Odouow ra €Ovy. ‘ But (what I do declare is) 
that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice.’ Here (according 
to the best texts), as in Rom. ii. 14, xv. 27, €6vy has a plural 
verb: in Rom. ix. 30 it has the singular, As 7a €6vy are 
animate and numerous, the plural is natural. On the history 
of the term €6vos see Kennedy, Sources, p. 98. 

Baipoviots Kai ob Ge Odouow. The Apostle seems to have 
LXX of Deut. xxxii. 17, €Ovoav datpoviows Kat od Bed, Oeots ols 
otk ydeurav, ‘They sacrificed to demons (.S#édim) and to a no- 
god, to gods whom they knew not,’ in his mind. That kai od 
6eo means ‘and to a no-god’ rather than ‘and not to God’ is 
confirmed by Deut. xxxii. 21; airot wapelnAwoav pe ex’ ov bed 

. Kay rapatndiow abrovs éx otk eve, ‘They have made 
me jealous with a no-god . . . and I will make them jealous 
with a no-people’; see Driver’s notes. In Bar. iv. 7 we have 
the same expression, probably based on Deut. xxxii. 17 ; @voavtes 
dapovios Kal ov Gea ‘by sacrificing to demons and no-god.’ 
The Shédim are mentioned, nowhere else, excepting Ps. cvi. 37, 
a late Psalm, possibly of the Greek period: according to it 
human sacrifices were offered to the Shédim; see Briggs ad Joc. 
In Ps. xcvi. 5, ‘ All the gods of the nations are idols,’ LX X zavres 
ot Geol tav ebvav darova, the word rendered ‘idols’ and daywona 
means ‘things of nought’ (Lev. xix. 4, xxvi. 1; Ps. xcvii. 7; 
cf. Is. xl. 18f., xliv. 9 f.). Asmodaeus, the evil spirit of Tob. 
iii. 8, vi. 14, is called in the Aram. and Heb. versions ‘king of 
the Shédim’; and it is possible that St Paul has the Shédim in 
his mind here. See Edersheim, Life and Times, u. pp. 759- 
763. Here, the translation, ‘and not to God,’ introduces a 
thought which is quite superfluous: there was no need to 
declare that sacrifices to idols are not offered to God. But 
‘to a no-god’ has point, and is probably a reminiscence of O.T. 
The Apostle is showing that taking part in the sacrificial feasts 
of the heathen involves two evils,—sharing in the worship of 
a thing-of-nought, and (what is still worse) having fellowship 
with demons. This latter point is the main thing, and it is 


expressly stated in what follows. See Hastings, D&. art. 


‘Demon’; Thackeray, p. 144. The primitive and wider-spread 
idea that there is, in sacrifice, communion between deity and 
worshippers, and between the different worshippers, greatly 
aided St Paul in his teaching. 


The idea that evil spirits are worshipped, when idols which represent 
non-existent pagan deities are worshipped, was common among the Jews, 
and passed over from them into the Christian Church, with the support 


X. 20, 21] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 217 


of various passages in both O.T. and N.T. In addition to those quoted 
above may be mentioned Is. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14, where both AV. and RV. 
have ‘satyrs’ and LXX déauuédvia. In Lev. xvii. 7 and 2 Chron. xi. 15, 
AV. has ‘devils,’ RV. ‘he goats,’ RV. marg. ‘satyrs,’ and LXX pdrata : 
see Curtis on 2 Chron. xi. 15. In Enoch xcix. 7, ‘‘ Others will make 
graven images of gold and silver and wood and clay, and others will 
worship impure spirits and demons and all kinds of superstitions not 
according to knowledge,” quoted by Tertullian (De /do/. 4). Book of 
Jubilees i, 11, ‘‘ They will worship each his own (image), so as to go 
astray, and they will sacrifice their children to demons”; and again, 
xxii. 17, ‘* They offer their sacrifices to the dead and they worship evil 
spirits.” In Rev. ix. 20, va uh mpookuyjcovow Td Satudvia kal ra eldwra. 
In the Gospels, and probably in the Apocalypse, dacudvia seem to be the 
same as mvevmata akadéapra, and that is likely to have been St Paul’s view. 
The close connexion between idolatry and impurity would point to this 
(see Weinel, S¢ Paul, pp. 31-34). By entering into fellowship with 
demons or unclean spirits, they were exposing themselves to hideous 
temptations of terrific violence. 


ob @é\w Sé «.t.4. ‘And I do not wish that you should become 
fellows of the demons’: ‘have fellowship with’ (AV.) or ‘have 
communion with’ (RV.) does not give the force of yiveoOa. 
The article shows that ‘the demons’ are regarded here as a 
society, into which the worshipper of idols is admitted. 


The text of v. 20 has been much varied by copyists, and some points 
remain doubtful. @dovcw (NW ABCDEFGP) is to be preferred to Ovex 
(KL), which is a grammatical correction in both places. After the first 
dvovsw, NACKLP, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. have 7a &vn: BDEF omit. 
WH. bracket. The second @vovow follows kal od 6eg (SN A BCP, Arm.), 
not precedes (D EF G, Vulg. Syrr. Copt.). For kotwwvods ray datpovlwv, 
1D ERG have datmovlwy Kowwvovs. For ylvecba, F, Syrr. Copt. have 
elvat, 


21. od Svvacbe. Of course it is not meant that there is any 
impossibility in going to the Lord’s Supper, and then going to 
an idol-feast: but it is morally impossible for one who has real 
fellowship with Christ to consent to have fellowship with demons. 
For one who does so consent ot« éorw xuptaxoy detrvov payeiv. 
Only those who do not realize what the Supper is, or do not 
realize what an idol-feast is, could think of taking part in both: 
cf. 2 Cor. vi. 15; Matt. vi. 22. The genitives may be possessive 
genitives, but the context indicates that they mean ‘the cup 
which brings you into fellowship with,’ genitives of relation. 

tpaméLys Kupiov. In Mal. i. 7, 12, ‘ My table,’ ze. the Lord’s 
table, means the altar; see also Ezek. xli. 22, xliv. 16. Here it 
can only mean the Lord’s Supper, ‘table’ (as often) including 
what was on it, especially food ; hence the expression, tpamélns 
peréxew. Wetstein quotes Diod. iv. 74, peracxov Kowis tparélys. 
Deissmann (ew Light on the N.T., p. 83; see also Light, 
p. 355) quotes the invitation to “dine at the «Aim of the Lord 
Serapis in the house of Cl. Serapion.” Probably from this 


218 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS |x. 21-22 


passage, and perhaps also from Luke xxii. 30, ‘the Lord’s Table’ 
came to mean the Lord’s Supper. Augustine calls it ‘the table 
of Christ’ and ‘that great table’; Ambrose and Gregory 
Nazianzen, ‘the mystical table’; etc. 

22.  mapalndodper tov Kupiov; A reminiscence of Deut. 
xxxii. 21 quoted above; see on Rom. x. 19, xi. 11: ‘Or are we 
provoking the Lord to jealousy?’ ‘Is that what we are engaged 
in—trying whether the Lord will suffer Himself to be placed on 
a level with demons?’ In Deut. ‘the Lord’ of course means 
Jehovah, and some understand it so here; but v. 21 almost 
necessitates a reference to Christ. The 7 introduces the alter- 
native, ‘Or (if you think that you ca eat of Christ’s table and of 
the table of demons) are we going to provoke His jealousy ?’ 

pi) loxupdtepor adtod éopev; ‘Surely we are not stronger than 
He?’ His anger cannot be braved with impunity; Job ix. 32, 
XXxvil. 23; Eccles. vi. 10; Isa. xlv. 9; Ezek. xxii. 14; some of 
which passages may have been in the Apostle’s mind when he 
thus reduced such an argument eis arowov. It is as when 
Jehovah answers Job out of the whirlwind. Cf. i. 13. 


x. 23-xi. 1. /dol-meats need not always be avotded, but 
brotherly love limits Christian freedom. Abstain from tdol- 
meats when an over-scrupulous brother tells you that they 
have been sacrificed to tdols. In this and in all things seek 
God's glory. That ts my rule, and it keeps one from injuring 
others. And it is my rule because it ts Christ's. 


*8 As was agreed before, In all things one may do as one 
likes, but not all things that one may do do good. In all things 
one may do as one likes, but not all things build up the life of 
the Church. * In all open questions, it is the well-being of the 
persons concerned, and not one’s own rights, that should deter- 
mine one’s action. 

*° See how this works in practice. Anything that is on sale 
in the meat-market buy and eat, asking for no information that 
might perplex your conscience; 7° for the meat in the market, 
like everything else in the world, is the Lord’s, and His children 
may eat what is His without scruple. 27 Take another case. If 
one of the heathen invites some of you to a meal, and you care 
to go, anything that may be set before you eat, asking for no 
information, as before. °8 But if one of your fellow-guests should 
think it his duty to warn you and say, This piece of meat has 
been offered in sacrifice, then refrain from eating it, so as to 


X. 23] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 219 


avoid shocking your informant and wounding conscience. 2 Of 
course I do not mean your own conscience, but the conscience 
of the over-scrupulous brother who warned you. For to what 
purpose should I, by using my liberty, place myself in a false 
position, judged by the conscience of another? *° Fancy ‘saying 
grace’ for food which causes offence and involves me in blame! 

31Tn short, that aim solves all these questions. Whether you 
are eating or drinking or doing anything else, let your motive 
always be the promotion of God’s glory. *? Beware of putting 
difficulties in the way of Jews by ill-considered liberty, or of 
Greeks by narrow-minded scruples, or of the Church of God by 
unchristian self-seeking. ° That is just my own principle. I try 
to win the approval of everybody in everything, not aiming at 
my own advantage, but at that of the many, that they may be 
saved from perdition. 1In this I am only following in the foot- 
steps of Christ. Will not you follow in mine? 

The whole discussion of eidwAdOvos, accordingly, issues in 
three distinct classes of cases, for each of which St Paul has a 
definite solution : 

(1) Eating at sacrificial feasts. This is idolatry, and absol- 
utely forbidden. 

(2) Eating food bought in the shops, which may or may not 
have an idolatrous history. This is unreservedly allowed. 

There remains (3) the intermediate case of food at non- 
ceremonial feasts in private houses. If no attention is drawn to 
the “history” of the food, this class falls into class (2). But if 
attention is pointedly called to the history of the food, its eating 
is prohibited, not as fer se idolatrous, but because it places the 
eater in a false position, and confuses the conscience of others. 


23. Ndvra éfeort. A return, without special personal refer- 
ence, to the principle stated (or perhaps quoted) in vi. 12 ; where 
see notes. Of course he means all things smdifferent, with regard 
to which a Christian has freedom. He repeats this principle, 
with its limitation, before dealing finally with the question of 
idol-meats. See Moffatt, Zit. of V.7., p. 112. 

ob mdvTa oikodopet. This explains od ravra ovppépe. There 
are some things which do not build up either the character of 
the individual, or the faith which he professes, or the society to 
which he belongs. A liberty which harms others is not likely to 
benefit oneself, and a liberty which harms oneself is not likely 
to benefit others. Cf. xiv. 26; Rom. xiv. 19. 


220 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 23-26 


Before étecrw, in both clauses, &* H KL, Syrr. AV. insert wot from 
vi 12: N*ABC*DE, Am. Copt. omit. Through homoeoteleuton, 
rdvra to rdvra, F G omit the first clause and 17 omits the second. 


24. pndels 7d éautod Lnreirw. This is the practice which 
really ovpdéepe and oixodopet: ‘Let no one seek his own good.’ 
The prohibition is, of course, relative: seeking one’s own good 
is not always wrong, but it is less important than seeking the 
good of others; and when the two conflict it is one’s own good 
that must give way: cf. v. 33, vii 18; Luke x. 20, xiv. 12, 13, 
xxiii. 28. 

adda 7d Tod érépov. The pyde’s of course is not the subject, 
but ékaoros, understood from the pyde’s. Such ellipses are as 
common in English as in Greek. Here, as in iil. 7 and vii. 19, 
the dAad implies the opposite of the previous negative. Here, 
D? E K Ladd &kaoros after €repov. The Apostle now returns to 
viii. 1-13 to finish the subject. 


25. év paxeAhkw. The word occurs nowhere else in Biblical, 
and is rare in classical, Greek ; = macel/um, which may be derived 
from macto=‘slaughter’ or macerta=‘enclosure.’ It means 
‘provision-market,’ and especially ‘meat-market.’ Probably a 
great deal of the meat offered for sale (twAovpevov) came from 
the sacrifices, especially what was sold to the poor. See Deiss- 
mann, Light, p. 274. 

pndév dvakpivovtes. ‘Making no inquiry’ as to whether the 
meat had been offered in sacrifice. It is not likely that the 
meaning is, ‘not examining any piece of meat,’ because of v. 27. 
In the market, it might be possible to distinguish sacrificial meat, 
but not after it had been served at table. 

Sia thy cuvetSyow. ‘Out of regard to conscience.’ Is this 
clause to be taken with pydev avaxpivovtes, or with dvaxpivovres 
only? If the latter, the meaning is ‘making no conscientious 
inquiries,’ asking no questions prompted by a scrupulous con- 
science. Had the order been pydev da 7. ovv. dvaxp., this would 
no doubt be the meaning. As the words stand, the former con- 
struction is better; ‘For the sake of your conscience making no 
inquiry,’ asking no questions which might trouble conscience. 
It is not wise to seek difficulties. The connexion with éo@/ere, 
‘eat, because your conscience is an enlightened one,” may safely 
be rejected. 


26. tod Kupiou yap. Quotation from Ps. xxiv. 1 to justify 
the advice just given. The emphasis is on 70d Kupfov, ‘To the 
Lord belongs the earth.’ Meat does not cease to be God’s 
creature and possession because it has been offered in sacrifice : 
what is His will not pollute any one. This agrees with Mark 
Vil 19, KaGapilov mdvra ra Bpdpara, and with Acts x. 15, & 6 


X. 26-28] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 221 


@eds éxaapirev. It is stated that the words here quoted are 
used by Jews as grace at meals. Whether or no they were so 
used in St Paul’s day, the principle laid down in 1 Tim. iv. 4 
was recognized ; ‘ Every creature of God is good, and nothing to 
be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving.’ 

TO wANpwpa adtis. ‘That which fills it,’ ‘its contents.’ See 
J. A. Robinson, Zphesians, p. 259. Cf. Ps. xcvi. 11, ‘The sea 
and all that therein is,’ ) @aAacoa Kai TO TANpwpa arias. 


27. kadet buds. The pronoun here has a slight change of 
meaning. He has been addressing all the Corinthian Christians, 
but this tza@s can only mean ‘some of you.’ All of them had 
heathen acquaintances, one of whom might invite several of 
them. And the emphasis is on xade: he suggests that without 
an express invitation they surely would not go. 

kat O€dete ropeveoOar. ‘And you care to go’: an intimation 
that he does not advise their going, though he does not forbid 
it; satius fore st recusarent (Calv.). 

wav TO TapatBépevov. Placed first with emphasis, like wav 765 
ev p. ToX.: ‘Anything that is put before you’; ‘Anything that 
is for sale,’ etc. Cf. Luke x. 8. 


el rs (NABD*FGP, Latt.) is to be preferred to ef dé tus (C D® 
EHKL, Syrr.). 


28. dav 8é tig Sutv ein. The change from «i to édy is 
perhaps intentional, although the difference between the two is 
less in late Greek than in earlier. ‘If any one invites you,’ a 
thing which is very possible and may have happened. ‘If any 
one should say to you,’ a pure hypothesis, and not so very 
probable. In Gal. i. 8, 9 we have a change from éav to ei. See 
J. H. Moulton, G~. p. 187. This shows clearly that the meal is 
a private one, and not such as is mentioned in viii. to. The 
Apostle has already ruled that banquets év eidwAim must be 
avoided, and at such a banquet there would be no need to say 
Todro iepoOutov éorw. It is less easy to decide who the speaker 
is. Certainly not the host, whose conscience would not be 
mentioned, but a fellow-guest. And we are almost certainly to 
understand a fellow-Christian, one of the ‘weak’ brethren, who, 
being scrupulous himself about such things, thinks that he ought 
to warn others of what he chances to know. That a heathen 
would do it out of malice, or amusement, or good-nature (“I 
dare say, you would rather not eat that”), is possible, but Ais 
conscience would hardly come into consideration. And his 
using iepdOvrov rather than cidwAd@vrov would seem to indicate 
that he was a Gentile Christian: when he was a heathen and 
regarded sacrifices to the gods as sacred, he would use tepd6vrov 


222 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [X. 28, 29 


and not el3wAd@urov: and he uses the old word still.* It shows 
how St Paul has realized the situation. The word occurs 
nowhere else in Bibl. Grk. See Deissmann, Lighé, p. 355 n. 

ph eoOiere. This cannot mean ‘Cease from eating.’ As 
éoOiere (7. 25) means ‘make a practice of eating,’ py éobicre 
means ‘make a practice of abstaining from eating.’ 

SU exeivov . . . Kal thy ouveiSnow. We expect abrov after 
cvveidnow, but the Apostle purposely omits to say whose con 
science is considered, in order to leave an opening for the 
emphatic statement which follows: ‘out of regard to your 
informant and to conscience.’ He would be shocked, and the 
shock would be a shock to conscience. 


lepd0urov (XN ABH, Sah.) is to be preferred to eléwé@urov (C DEF 
G K LP, Copt. Arm.), which is a correction to a more usual and apparently 
more correct term. There would be little temptation to change e/dwdd8uroy 
into lepd@vrov, which occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. The AV., 
following H? K L, Goth., Chrys. Thdrt., adds from v. 26 ‘ The earth is the 
Lords,’ etc. NABCDEFGH*P, Latt. Copt. Aeth. Arm. omit. 


29. auveiSnow 8€ Aéyw. ‘Now by conscience I mean, not 
one’s own, but the other’s,’ not the guest’s who received the 
information, but the fellow-guest’s who gave it. There is no 
need to regard éavrod as second person (‘thine own,’ AV., RV.) 
for oeavrov: it may be indefinite, ‘one’s own.’ In the plural, 
éavtoy, etc. is regularly used in N.T. for nudv airév and tpov 
avtov, etc. (xi. 31; Phil ii. 12, etc.); but, in the singular, there 
is not one decisive example of this use. In Rom. xiii. 9; Gal. 
v. 14; Matt. xxii. 39, ceavrov is the better reading; in John 
Xvili. 34, geavtod. Here, éavrod is the right reading. 

iva tl yap 4 e€evPepia pou; The Apostle graphically puts 
himself in the place of the Christian guest who has been placed 
in a difficulty by the officiousness of his scrupulous informant ; 
éx sua persona docet. iva ti yap: the force of the wa is lost 
in most explanations of this clause (except Godet). ta ri (see 
small print) never means ‘by what right,’ but rather ‘for what 
object’? St Paul’s main point in the context is pi éoOiere, for 
which yap introduces a reason: ‘Eat not, . . . for what good 
will you gain?’ (cf. viii. 8). What follows is really a characteriza- 
tion of the act of eating. The clue to the tense is in Rom. xiv. 16, 
where the same verb, BAacdypetocOu, is used in a very similar 
connexion, ‘What good shall I gain by (eating, ze.) by suffering 
my liberty to incur judgment (as xi. 31; Rom. ii. 12; Acts xiii. 


* See Origen (Ce/s. viii. 21 sud tnit.), where he says that Celsus would 
call leps@ura what are properly called e/5wd8ura, or, still better, dauwovcd0ura. 
There is no improbability in a ‘weak’ Christian accepting the invitation of a 
heathen. There would be plenty of food that had never been sacrificed : and 
he might avoid the word e/éwAd@urov out of consideration for his entertainer. 


x. 29-31] THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 223 


27) at the hands of another’s conscience? Why incur blame 
for food for which I give thanks, if I “say grace” for it?’ In the 
last clause, the point is in the incongruity of ‘saying grace’ for 
what places me in a false position ; the structure exhibits a slight 
logical inversion closely similar to that in Rom. vii. 16 (see 
Introd. § on Style). 

For éavrod (SN ABC D?E, etc.), D*, Latt. (¢am) have ceavrod, and H 
has éuavrov, which are manifest corrections. For d\Ays, F, dg Goth., 
Ambr. have dmiorov, which is wrong both as reading and as interpretation. 

The interrogative iva ri (with yévyra or yévorro understood) is found 
in several places, both in N.T. (Matt. ix. 4, xxvii. 46; Luke xiii. 7; Acts 
iv. 25, vii. 25) and in LXX (Ruth i. 11, 21; Ecclus. xiv. 3; 1 Mac. ii. 7); 
also in Plato and Aristophanes. Cf. ut guzd? and zm guid? and ad guid ? 

30. ei eyo xdpitr petéxw. ‘If I with thanksgiving partake, 
why do I receive reviling about that for which I give thanks?’ 
This suggests, if it does not imply, that one’s being able to 
thank God for it is evidence that the enjoyment is innocent. 
One cannot thank God for a pleasure which one knows to be 
wrong. ‘The connexion between xdpite and evdyapio7d should be 
preserved in translation. Apparently both refer to grace at 
meals, and the meaning is that all food, whether sacrificial or 
not, is sanctified, ‘if it be received with thanksgiving,’ wera edya- 
piotias, dyidlerar yap dia Adyou cod cai evrevéews (t Tim. iv. 4). 
Evans translates, ‘If I with grace sa¢d have meat with others, 
why am I evil spoken of for having meat for which I have said 
grace?’ AV. and RV. render ydpite ‘by grace,’ which means 
‘by God’s grace’ (xv. 10), either His grace in providing food, or 
His grace in enlightening the conscience (Chrys.). So also 
Calvin; guum Det beneficium sit, guod omnia mihi licent. But 
this is less likely than ‘thanksgiving.’ See Ellicott. 

The 6é between el and éyd (CD*EHKL, Syrr.) may be safely 
omitted (8 B D* FG P, Latt.). AV. has ‘For,’ which has no authority. 
No connecting particle is required, and 6é interrupts the sense. In any 
case éyw is emphatic, ‘If I for my part.’ For xdpcre without the article cf, 
Eph. ii. 5; Heb. ii. 9, xiii. 9. 

31. Eire ody éoOiere. The ody gathers up the results of the long 
discussion, and introduces a comprehensive principle which 
covers this question and a great many other things. All is to 
be done to God’s glory ; and this aim will be a good guide in 
doubtful cases.* It has been suggested before, vi. 20. 

cite tt wovette. ‘Or do anything’; the active side of life as 
distinct from enjoyment and refreshment. Cf. 6 tu éav rochre, 
mavta év dvopare Kupiov "Inoov, and 6 éay rrouijre, épydleobe bs 1h 

* Epictetus (Arr. D7s. ii. 19) says; ‘*I have this purpose, to make you 
free from constraint, compulsion, hindrance, to make you free, prosperous, 


happy, looking to God in everything small and great,” els Qedv dgopavras év 
mavTl mikpp kat peydahy. 


224 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [x. 31-33 


Kvpiw (Col. iii. 17, 23). Foregoing our rights out of Christian 
charity would illustrate this. Adstazning from action, for a good 
motive, is included in ru woveire as well as deeds, whether simple 
or heroic. Ignatius repeatedly has the phrase, cis tysnv Ocod 
(Eph. 21 dis, Smyrn. ur, Polyce. 5; cf. Magn. 3, Trall. 12), 
Here again, as in v. 28, we have the refrain interpolated ; ‘ For 
the earth is the Lord’s,’ etc. (C*). See Deissmann, Light, p. 459. 


32. dmpdcxorot yiveobe. ‘Behave without giving offence,’ ‘prove 
yourselves to be averse to causing others to stumble’; szve 
offensione estote(Vulg.). The term here, as in Ecclus. xxxii. 21, 
is certainly transitive, ‘not making to stumble’: in Acts xxiv. 16 
it is certainly intransitive, ‘without stumbling’: in Phil. i. ro it 
may be either, but is probably intransitive. The use of the term 
here, in continuation of the great principle set forth in v. 31, 
shows that refraining from doing is much in his mind when he 
Says €iTe TL ToLEtTE. 

kal “loudalors y. kal “EAAnow Kat TH exkAnola Tod Oeod. These are 
three separate bodies ; the third does not include the other two. 
Therefore unconverted Jews and unconverted Greeks are meant ; 
they are of é&w (v. 12), and it is an Apostolic principle that 
Christian conduct must be regulated with reference to those 
outside the Church as well as those within : tva repurarire eboyy- 
povws mpos Tors e€w (1 Thess. iv. 12; cf. Col. iv. 5). An ill- 
advised exhibition of Christian freedom might shock Jews and 
an ill-advised rigour about matters indifferent might excite the 
derision of Greeks, and thus those who might have been won 
over would be alienated. In kat r7 éx. rod @, (i. 2, xi. 16, 22, 
xv. 9) he is again thinking of the weak brethren who have 
needless scruples.* See on xii. 12. 


kat Toudalos ylver@e is the order in N* ABC 17, Orig. There would 


be obvious temptation to correct to ylveode rots I., asin N? DEFGKLP; 
and versions follow suit. 


33. KaQus kdyo ... dpéoxw. ‘Just as I also am ready to 
render service to all men in all things.’ The rendering ‘please’ 
for dpéoxw is somewhat misleading, for it seems to mean that 
the Apostle habitually curried favour with every one and tried to 
be liked by all. Cf. Gal. i. 10, ‘Please’ is used from his own 
point of view of what ought to please. *Apéoxew is sometimes 
almost ‘to be a benefactor to.’ “In monumental inscriptions 
the words dpécayres 77 wode, TH watpide, etc. are used to describe 
those who have proved themselves of use to the commonwealth, 


* There is no ‘‘harsh note of ecclesiasticism” here. It is the glory of 
God that is put in the first place, and, after that, the good of others. 

Ignatius recalls these words and iv. 1, when he writes (77a//. 2), de? 52 

kai rods diaxdvous bvras wuoryplwy "I. Xpiorod kara wdvra TpbTov Tacw apécKew, 


XI. 1} THESE PRINCIPLES APPLIED 225 


as in O. G. I. S. 646, 12, dpecavra tH Te airy Bovdrg kai ro Sypw” 
(Milligan on 1 Thess. ii. 4). What follows shows that his aim 
was not popularity. 

pr) Lntdv Td €pautod adpdopov. The conclusion shows what 
kind of ovudopov is meant, viz. spiritual profit. The saving of 
his own soul is not his main object in life; that would be a 
refined kind of selfishness. He seeks his own salvation through 
the salvation of others. The unity of the Church as the Body of 
Christ is such that the spiritual gain of one member is to be 
sought in the spiritual gain of the whole (v. 17, xii. 12, 25, 26). 
It is for this reason that he prefers inspired preaching to speaking 
in a Tongue (xiv. 4, 19). It is a commonplace among philo- 
sophers that the man who seeks his own happiness does not 
find it: it is in seeking the happiness of others that each man 
finds his own. See Phil. ii. 4; Rom. xv. 1. Josephus (B./. 1v. 
v. 2) praises Ananus as po tov idtwy AvowredAGv 70 KoWw] cvpdéepov 
Ti €evos. 

iva ow8Go.v. Asin ix. 22. This effort must be to the glory 
of God, for it is carrying on His work (Col. i. 13, 14). Cf. i. 21; 
1 Thess. li. 16; 1 Tim. ii. 4. This shows what waowv adpéoxw means, 


As in vii. 35, otugdopov(N* ABC) is to be preferred to cuuépov 
(88 DEFGKLP). Nowhere else in N.T. does s¥uqopos occur; in LXX 
only 1 Mac. iv. 5. Hence the change to a more familiar word. In xii, 7, 
cundépor is right: cupdépery is, frequent. 


XI. 1. The division of the chapters is unfortunate. This verse 
clearly belongs to what precedes. He has just stated his own 
principle of action, and he begs them to follow it, because it is 
Christ’s: inc apparet, quam ineptae sint capitum sectiones (Calv.). 
There is no connexion with what follows. 

pipntat pou yivecGe. ‘Become imitators of me.’ Excepting 
Heb. iv. 12, wupyrys is in N.T. peculiar to Paul (iv. 16; Eph. v. 
1; 1 Thess. 1. 6, ii. 14): not found in LXX. Everywhere it is 
joined with yiver6a, which indicates moral effort; ‘Strive to 
behave as I do.’ Everywhere the more definite ‘imitator’ (RV.) 
is to be preferred to ‘follower’ (AV.): ‘Be ye followers of me’ 
is doubly defective. Cf. domep xai tov dAdwv epywv oi diSdoKador 
Tovs pabyras piysntas éavtdv azrodexviovoew (Xen. Mem. 1. vi. 3). 

KaQes Kady Xpiotod. This addition dispels the idea that it is 
in any spirit of arrogance that he asks them to imitate him ; 
once more he is only asking them to do what he does himself, 
to follow the example of one whom they recognized as their 
teacher: nihil praescribit alits quod non prior observaverit ; 
deinde se et alios ad Christum, tanquam unicum recte agendi 
exemplar revocat (Calv.). It is as an example of self-sacrifice 
that he takes Christ as his model: the whole context shows this. 


15 


226 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 2-16 


And it is commonly this aspect of Christ’s life that is regarded, 
when He is put before us in N.T. as an example: Rom. xv. 2, 3 ; 
2 Cor. viii.g; Eph. v. 2; Phil. ii. 4, 5. “‘ The details of His 
life are not generally imitable, our calling and circumstances 
being so different from His. Indeed, the question, ‘What 
would Jesus do?’ may be actually misleading” (Goudge). The 
wiser question is, ‘ Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?’ It is 
seldom that St Paul mentions any of the details of our Lord’s 
life on earth, and it is therefore unlikely that he is thinking of 
anything but the subject in hand—sacrificing one’s own rights 
and pleasures for the good of others. Nevertheless, the know- 
ledge which St Paul displays of details is sufficient to show that 
he knew a great deal more than he mentions, and exaggerated 
statements have been made respecting his supposed ignorance. 
See Knowling, Zhe Testimony of St Paul to Christ, Lect. x. ; 
Jacquier, Histoire des Livres du N.T., u. 22-24; The Fifth 
Gospel, pp. 75, 195 f. On the supposed difference between the 
teaching of Christ and that of St Paul see Kaftan, Jesus und 
Paulus, Tiibingen 1906, esp. pp. 24, 32, 58; Walther, Pauli 
Christentum Jesu Evangelium, Leipzig, 1908, esp. pp. 25-30; 
Jilicher, Paulus und Jesus, Tubingen, 1907, esp. pp. 35 f. 


XI. 2-XIV. 40. DISORDERS IN CONNEXION WITH 
PUBLIC WORSHIP AND THE MANIFESTATION OF 
SPIRITUAL GIFTS. 

This constitutes the third * main division of the Epistle, and 
it contains three clearly marked sections; respecting (1) the 
Veiling of Women, xi. 2-16; (2) Disorders connected with the 
Lord’s Supper, xi. 17-34; (3) Spiritual Gifts, especially Pro- 
phesying and Tongues, xii. 1—xiv. 40. At the outset there isa 
possible reference to the Corinthians’ letter to the Apostle; but 


the sections deal with evils which had come to his knowledge in 
other ways. 


XI. 2-16. The Veiling of Women in Public Worship. 


Although in respect of religion men and women are on 
an equality, yet the Gospel does not overthrow the natural 
ordinance, which is really of Divine appointment, that woman 
ts subject toman. To disavow this subjection before the con- 
gregation must cause grave scandal ; and such shamelessness 
ts condemned by nature, by authority, and by general custom. 

* The fourth, if the Introduction (i. 1-9) be counted, 


xI. 2-16] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 227 


2? Now, as to another question, I do commend you for re- 
membering me, as you assure me you do, in all things, and for 
loyally holding to the traditions just as I transmitted them to 
you. *But I should like you to grasp, what has not previously 
been mentioned, that of every man, whether married or un- 
married, Christ is the head, while a woman’s head is her husband, 
and Christ’s head is God. ‘Every man, whether married or 
unmarried, who has any covering on his head when he publicly 
prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours 
his head: ® whereas every woman, whether married or unmarried, 
who has her head uncovered when she publicly prays to God or 
expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours her head ; for she 
is then not one whit the better than the wanton whose head is 
shaven. ®A woman who persists in being unveiled like a man 
should go the whole length of cutting her hair short like a 
man. But seeing that it is a mark of infamy for a woman to 
have her hair cut off or shorn, let her wear a veil. 7A man has 
no right to cover his head; he is by constitution the image of 
God and reflects God’s glory: whereas the woman reflects man’s 
glory. 

8 Man was created first; he does not owe his origin to 
woman, but woman owes hers to him; %and, what is more, she 
was made for his sake, and not he for hers. 1! For this reason 
she ought, by covering her head, publicly to acknowledge her 
subjection. Even if she does not shrink from scandalizing men, 
she might surely fear to be an offence to angels. 

1 Nevertheless, this dependence of the woman has its limits: 
in the Lord neither sex has any exclusive privileges, but each 
has an equal share. 1? For as, at the first, the woman came into 
being from the man, so, ever since then, the man has come into 
being by means of the woman ; and, like everything else, both 
are from God. 

13.Use your own powers of discernment. Is it decent that a 
woman should have her head uncovered when she publicly offers 
prayer to God? 1}4Surely even nature itself teaches you that for 
a man to wear his hair long is degrading to him ; “whereas this is 
a glory to a woman, because her long hair is God’s gift to her, 
to serve her asa covering. 1° Yet, if any one is so contentious 
as to dispute this conclusion, it will suffice to say that both 
Christian authority and Christian usage are against him. 


228 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 2 


2. "Emawa 8¢ bpas. ‘Now I do praise you that in all things 
ye remember me and hold fast the delivered instructions exactly 
as I delivered them to you.’ The verse is introductory to the 
whole of this division of the letter which treats of public worship. 
With his usual tact and generosity, the Apostle, before finding 
fault, mentions things which he can heartily and honestly praise.* 
The S¢ marks the transition to a new topic, and perhaps from 
topics which the Corinthians had mentioned in their letter to 
others which he selects for himself. “Emaw& looks forward to 
ovx éraw® which is coming (v. 17): here he can praise, in some 
other matters he cannot. He may be referring to his own letter 
(v. 2); ‘Now, it is quite true that I praise you.’ Or he may be 
referring to their letter, ‘Now, I do praise you that, as you tell 
me, in all things you remember me’; comp. viil. 1. Primasius, 
in any case, gives the right key; Quid erat, quod subito laudat 
guos ante vituperavit? Ubi legts auctoritatem non habet, blandi- 
mentis provocat ad rationem, ‘The translation, ‘that ye remember 
everything of mine,’ is possible but not probable: pépvnpar c. 
acc. is fairly common in classical Greek, but is not found in 
N.T. Both wévta and xa@ds tapédwxa buty are emphatic: their 
remembrance of him was unfailing, and they observed with loyal 
precision what he had told them—by word of mouth or in the 
lost letter. Neither zapadidwm (in this sense) nor zapadocts 
(Gal. i. 14; Col. ii. 8; 2 Thess. ii. 15, ii. 6) are common in the 
Pauline Epp. It is possible that in some of these passages, as 
in v. 23 and xv. 3, we have an allusion to some rudimentary 
creed which was given to missionaries and catechists ¢ : comp. 
2 Thess. ii. 5. ‘There had been a Jewish zapddoo1s of monstrous 
growth, and it had done much harm (Matt. xv. 6; Mark vii. 8; 
Gal. i. 14). There is now a Christian rapdadoors to supersede it, 
and it was from the first regarded as precious (1 Tim. vi. 20; 
2 Tim. 1. 14). See Mayor, St Jude and 2 Peter, pp. 23, 613 
A. E. Burn, Zntr. to the Creeds, ch. ii. This zapadoots contained 
the leading facts of the Gospel and the teaching of Christ and 
the Apostles. As yet there were no written Gospels for St Paul 
to appeal to, although there may have been written collections 
of the Sayings of our Lord. For xaréyere cf. xv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 
21; Heb. x. 23; Luke viii. 15 ; and see Milligan, 7%essa/onians, 
p. 155. ‘There may be a reference to v. 1; in this they are 
imitating him ; or a reference to their own letter. 

* Atto of Vercelli seems to be mistaken in saying, Haec nempe verba per 
troniam dicta sunt. So also Herveius; Per zroniam incipit logut. His 
verbis plus illos tangit, guam st mantifeste increparet eos. Quasi diceret ; 


Vos obliti estts met, et traditiones meas non tenetis, sed volo ut ista quae sub- 
jungo, sciatis, There isno sarcasm. Cf. i. 4-9. 


+ See Basil De Spir. xxix. 71. The péuvnobe rather implies a consider- 
able time since he had been at Corinth, It may have been over two years. 


XI. 2-4] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 229 


The ‘brethren’ in AV., following DEFGKL, Latt., is an interpola- 
tion: N ABC P Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit. 


3. O€Xw S€ wads eidévar. ‘But I would have you know’ 
something not previously mentioned, but of more importance 
than they supposed, because of the principles involved. In Col. 
ll. 1 we have the same el ares but more often od @éAw pas 
dyvoeiv (x. I, xil. 1; 2 Cor. i. 8; Rom. i. 13, xi. 25), which is 
always accompanied by the ectionate address, adeAfou. He 
feels bound to insist upon the point in question, and perhaps 
would hint that the Corinthians do not know everything. 

tavtos dvipds. ‘ Of every man Christ is the head’: zravrdg is 
emphatic, every male of the human family. He says avdpds rather 
than dv6pwrov (xv. 45) to mark the contrast with yvv7, and he 
takes the middle relationship first; ‘man to Christ’ comes 
between ‘woman to man’ and ‘Christ to God.’ By kepady is 
meant supremacy, and in each clause it is the predicate ; ‘ Christ 
is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is the 
head of Christ’: ili. 23; Eph. i. 22, iv. 15, v. 23, comp. Judg,. 
xi. I1; 2 Sam. xxil. 44. God is supreme in reference to the 
Messiah as having sent Him. ‘This was a favourite Arian text ; 
it is in harmony with xv. 24-28, and, like that passage, it 
implies more than the inferiority of Christ’s human nature ; 
John vi. 57. See Ellicott, 1 Corinthians, pp. 64, 65; H. St 
J. Thackeray, S¢ Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 49 ; 
Godet, ad Joc. 


4. mpoceuxdpevos 7 mpopyreudy kata Kehadis €xwv. ‘When he 
prays or prophesies having (a veil) down over his head.’ The 
participles are temporal and give the circumstances of the case. 
With kata xed. exwv comp. Avrovpevos Kata Kep. of Haman 
(Esth. vi. 12), Vulg. oferto capite; here velato capite. The 
‘ prophesying’ means public teaching, admonishing or comfort- 
ing ; delivering God’s message to the congregation (xiii. 9, xiv. 1, 
3, 24, 31, 39). Such conduct ‘dishonours his head’ because 
covering it is a usage which symbolizes subjection to some 
visible superior, and in common worship the man has none: 
those who are visibly present are either his equals or his inferiors. 
There is no reason for supposing that men at Corinth had been 
making this mistake in the congregation. The conduct which 
would be improper for men is mentioned in order to give point 
to the censure on women, who in this matter had been acting as 
men. It is doubtful whether the Jews used the fa//th or veil 
in prayer as early as this. We need not suppose that the 
Apostle is advocating the Greek practice of praying bare-headed 
in opposition to Jewish custom: he is arguing on independent 
Christian principles. ‘Tertullian’s protest to the heathen (A/o/. 


230 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 4, 5 


30), that the Christians pray with head uncovered, because they 
have nothing to be ashamed of, is not quite in point here. 

If in ‘dishonoureth his head’ (not ‘ Head’) there is any 
allusion to Christ (v. 3), it is only indirect. The head, as the 
symbol of Christ, must be treated with reverence ; so also the 
body (vi. 19), as the temple of the Spirit. And there may be a 
hint that, in covering his head in public worship, the man would 
be acknowledging some head other than Christ. See Edwards 
and Ellicott; also Art. ‘Schleier’ in Kraus, Real-Ency. d. christ. 
Alf, 11. p. 735. 


5. ‘ Praying or prophesying’ must be understood in the same 
way in both verses: it is arbitrary to say that the man is 
supposed to be taking the lead in full public worship, but the 
woman in mission services or family prayers. Was a woman to 
be veiled at family prayers? Yet in public worship women were 
not to speak at all (xiv. 34; 1 Tim. ii. 12). Very possibly the 
women had urged that, if the Spirit moved them to speak, they 
must speak ; and how could they speak if their faces were veiled ? 
In that extreme case, which perhaps would never occur, the Apostle 
says that they must speak veiled. They must not outrage 
propriety by coming to public worship unveiled because of the 
bare possibility that the Spirit may compel them to speak.* 
Comp. Philip’s daughters (Acts xxi. 9), and the quotation from 
Joel (Acts ii. 18), In neither men nor women must prophesying 
be interpreted as speaking with Tongues. The latter was 
addressed to God and was unintelligible to most hearers ; 
prophesying was addressed to the congregation. The women 
perhaps argued that distinctions of sex were done away in Christ 
(Gal. ili. 28), and that it was not seemly that a mark of servitude 
should be worn in Christian worship; or they may have asked 
why considerations about the head should lead to women being 
veiled and men not. And perhaps they expected that the 
Apostle who preached against the bondage of the Law would 
oe be favour of the emancipation of women. See De Wette, 
ad loc. 

The unveiled woman dishonours her head, because that is the 
part in which the indecency is manifested. Also by claiming 
equality with the other sex she disgraces the head of her own 
sex; she is a bare-faced woman, ‘for she is one and the same 
thing (neut. Blass, Gr. § 31. 2) with the woman that is shaven,’ 
either as a disgrace for some scandalous offence, or out of 
bravado. Aristoph. Zhesm. 838; Tac. Germ. 19; and other 
illustrations in Wetst. The Apostle has married women chiefly 


*See Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 11. pp. 65, 
395-6, ed. 1902. See also Tert. De Virgin vel. 13; De Orat. 21. 


XI. 5-9] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 231 


in view. In Corinth anything questionable in Christian wives 
was specially dangerous, and the Gospel had difficulties enough 
to contend against without shocking people by breaches of usage. 
Christianity does not cancel the natural ordinances of life; and 
it is by the original ordinance of God that the husband has 
control of the wife. Only here and v. 13 does dxaraxddvmros 
occur in N.T. Having decided the matter in question (vz. 4, 5), 
St Paul now proceeds (vv. 6-16) to justify his decision. 


6. If a woman refuses to be veiled, let her be consistently 
masculine and cut her hair close ; no veil, short hair: the verbs 
are middle, not passive, and express her own action (Blass, Gr. 
§ 55-2). If she flings away the covering provided by Divine 
ordinance, let her also fling away the ‘covering provided by 
nature (Chrys.). The combination of the aor. mid. with the 
pres. mid. (xe/pacOar 7 EvpaoGar) is so unusual that some editors 
prefer €JpacGa, aor. mid. from Evpe, a late form found in 
Plutarch (Veitch, s.v.; Blass, Gr. § 24). 


7. The connexion between édeiAcc (v. 10) and ovik ddeire 
here must be marked: the woman is morally bound, the man is 
not morally bound, to veil his head. But ‘not bound to’ may be 
an understatement for ‘ bound not to’; comp. Acts xvii. 29: St 
Paul can hardly mean that the man may please himself, while the 
woman may not—wmagts liber est viro habitus capitis quam multert 
(Beng.); for he has just said that the man puts his head to 
shame by covering it, as a woman puts her head to shame by not 
doing so. Svcut vir professione libertatis caput suum honorat, ita 
mulier, subjectionts (Calvin). The man ought not to wear a 
covering, ‘since he is by original constitution (trdpywv) God’s 
image and glory,’ reflecting the Creator’s will and power, ‘ while 
the wife is her husband’s glory.’ This she is as a matter of fact 
(€oriv, not tmdpxe). See Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, p. 674. 
She also was made kar’ eixova @eov, for in Gen. ti. 26 avOpwrov 
includes both sexes, but this fact is omitted here, because it is 
the relation of woman to man, not of woman to God, that is 
under consideration ; and, as she has a superior, she does not 
so well represent Him who has no superior. Moreover, it 
is the son, rather than the wife, who is the eikév of the man. 
Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 13. 


8, 9. Parenthetical, to confirm the statement that the 
woman is man’s glory by an appeal to both initial (ex) and final 
(dua c. acc.) causes. Woman was created out of man, and more- 
over (wat yap) for man, not wice versa. ‘The articles in z. 9, THY 
yuvaika . . . TOV ee may mean the woman and the man in 
Gen. ii. 18-22, Eve and Adam. For kat ydp see Blass, § 78. 6. 


tN 


32 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS { XI. 10 


10. $a todro. Because * man is a reflexion of the divine 
glory, while woman is only a reflexion of that reflexion, “ there- 
fore the woman (generic) is morally bound to have [the mark of 
his| authority upon her head.” The passage is unique, no 
satisfactory parallel having been found. There is no real doubt 
as to the meaning, which is clear from the context. The diffi- 
culty is to see why the Apostle has expressed himself in this 
extraordinary manner. That ‘authority’ (éove/a) is put for 
‘sign of authority’ is not difficult; but why does St Paul say 
‘authority’ when he means ‘subjection’? The man has the 
symbol of authority, no veil on his head ; the woman has the 
symbol of sudjection, a veil on her head. For éovaia we should 
expect trorayy (1 Tim. ii. 11, ili. 4, of the subjection of women), 
or tregis (Plut. 2. 751D of the subjection of women; comp. 
imeixerv, Heb. xiii. 17), or traxon (Rom. v. 19, vi. 16, xvi. 19). 
Is it likely that St Paul would say the exact opposite of what he 
means? The words put in square brackets can scarcely be the 
true explanation. For conjectural emendations of éefovoiay (all 
worthless) see Stanley, ad loc. p. 184. 

In Rev. xi. 6, e€ovolay éxovow ert tov tdatwv means ‘ have 
control over the waters’; xiv. 18, €xwv éfovoiay ert rod zpos, 
‘ having control over fire’; xx. 6, érl rovtwy 6 devTepos Oavaros ovK 
€xer eovoiav, ‘over these the second death has no control.’ 
Comp. Rom. ix. 21; 1 Cor. vii. 37 ; the LXX of Dan. iii. 30 (97). 
Can the meaning here be, ‘ought to have control over her head,’ 
so as not to expose it to indignity? If she unveils it, every one 
has control over it and can gaze at her so as to put her out of 
countenance. Her face is no longer under her own control. 

Ramsay (Zhe Cities of St Paul, pp. 202 ff.) scouts the 
common explanation that the ‘authority’ which the woman 
wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject, “a 
preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at any 
where except in the N.T.” Following Thomson (Zhe Land and 
the Book, p. 31) he explains thus. “In Oriental lands the veil is 
the power and the honour and dignity of the woman. With the 
veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound 
respect. She is not seen; it is a mark of thoroughly bad 
manners to observe a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. 
The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she 
istothem. Sheis supreme in thecrowd. .. . But without the veil 
the woman isa thing of nought, whom any one may insult... . A 


. One might say, ‘Precisely for this reason,’ 5:4 rodro being stronger 
than ody, and introducing a special, if an exclusive reason. This helps to 
decide the explanation of 6a rods dyyéXous, which must mean something that 


is at least a very important reason for women being veiled in public worship, 
if not the only reason. 


XI. 10} DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 233 


woman’s authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering 
veil that she discards. ‘That is the Oriental view, which Paul 
learned at Tarsus.” In his Preface (vi.) Ramsay adds; ‘In the 
Hebrew marriage ceremony, as it is celebrated in modern 
Palestine, I am informed that the husband snatches off the 
bride’s veil and throws it on his own shoulder, as a sign that he 
has assumed authority over her.” Was Rebekah’s veiling 
herself a sign of subjection? Gen. xxiv. 65. See Glover, Zhe 
Conflict of Religions in the Roman World, p. 154. 

Sa tods dyyédous. These words have produced much 
discussion, but there is not serious doubt as to their meaning. 
They are not a gloss (Baur), still less is the whole verse an 
interpolation (Holsten, Baljon). Marcion had the words, and 
the evidence for them is overwhelming.* An interpolator would 
have made his meaning clearer. Accepting them, we may 
safely reject the explanation that ‘angels’ here mean the bishops 
(Ambrose) or presbyters (Ephraem) or all the clergy (Primasius). 
Nor can evil angels be meant (Tert. De Virg. vel. vii., xvii.); the 
article is against it: ot dyyeXo. always means good angels 
(xiii. 1; Matt. xiii. 49, xxv. 31 ; Luke xvi./22);. Heb. 1.4, 5; etc), 
And the suggestion that the Apostle is hinting that unveiled 
women might be a temptation to angels (Gen. vi. 1, 2) is some- 
what childish. Is it to be supposed that a veil hides a human 
face from angels, or that public worship would be the only 
occasion when an unveiled woman might lead angels into 
temptation? It is a mistake to quote the Testament of the 
XII. Patriarchs (Reuben v. 6), or the Book of Jubilees (iv. 15, 
22), or Theodotus (Frag. 44; C. R. Gregory, Znilett. in d. N.T., 
p. 151), in illustration of this passage. The meaning is plain. If 
a woman thinks lightly of shocking men, she must remember 
that she will also be shocking the angels, who of course are 
present at public worship. Compare iv. g, and évavtiov ayyéAwy 
Wars oo (Ps. cxxxviil. 1), and ‘ O ye angels of the Lord, bless ye 
the Lord’ (Song of the Three Children, 37). Ancient liturgies 
often bear witness to this belief, as does our own; “ Therefore with 
Angels and Archangels,” etc., Chrysostom says, ‘ Knowest thou 
not that thou standest in the midst of the angels? with’ them 
thou singest, with them thou chantest, and dost thou stand 
laughing?” See Luke xv. 7, 10, xii. 8, 9. 

One other suggestion is worth considering, viz. that da 7. 
ayyéAovs might mean ‘because the angels do so.’ Angels, in 
the presence of their direct and visible Superior, veil their faces 


* St Paul assumes, as obvious to his readers, a connexion no longer 
obvious to us. We can hardly regard the reason intended as falling outside 
the scope of the di rofro (see above). The question is, what point of 
contact for 6:4 rT. ayy. is furnished in wv. 3-9? 


234 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XI. 10-13 


(Isa. vi. 2); a woman, when worshipping in the presence of her 
direct and visible superior (man), should do the same. 


Conjectural emendations (all worthless) are quoted by Stanley: see 
also Expositor, 1st series, xi. p. 20. ‘‘ None of the known emendations 
can possibly be right; and the intrinsic and obvious difficulty is itself 
enough to set aside the suggestion that the whole verse is an interpolation 


(WH. Afp. p. 116). 


11. mAjv. Limitation. Although by original constitution 
woman is dependent on man, yet he has no right to look down 
on her. In the Christian sphere each is dependent on the other, 
and both are dependent on God (viii. 6; Rom. xi. 36); and it 
is only in the Christian sphere that woman’s rights are duly 
respected. Each sex is incomplete without the other. 

€v Kupiw. ‘There can be no separation between man and 
woman when both are members of Christ. Cf. for év Kupiw 
1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 4; Gal. v. ro; Eph. iv. 17. 

NABCD* DDEFGHP, RV. have odre yuri) x. a. before obte dvinp 

x.y. D* KL, Vulg. AV. transpose the clauses. 


12. This mutual dependence of the sexes is shown by the 
fact that, although originally woman sprang from man, yet ever 
since then it is through woman that man comes into existence: 
if he is her initial cause (ek), she is his instrumental cause 
(dia c. gen.), But (another reason why man must not be con- 
temptuous) the whole universe—man and woman and their 
whole environment—owes its origin to God. Cf. xv. 27; Eph. 
v. 23; and see Basil, De Spiritu, v. 12, xviii. 46. 


13. In conclusion he asks two questions, the second of 
which clinches the first. He appeals to their general sense of 
propriety, a sense which is in harmony with the teaching of dvoxs 
and is doubtless inspired by ¢vows. Their ideas of what is 
mpérov are in the best sense zafura/. It should be noted that 
both in AV, and RV. the second question is brought to a close 
too soon. ‘The note of interrogation should be placed after 
‘it is a glory to her,’ as in the Vulgate, Luther, Tyndale, and 
Coverdale. Beza and others make three questions, breaking up 
the second into two. 

€v bpiv adtois kpivete. In their own inner judgment (vi. 2), 
cannot they decide (x. 15)? ‘Is it becoming that a woman 
should pray to God unveiled?’ Usually zpooevyouar has no 
case after it, but here r@ @e@ is added to emphasize the prin- 
ciple that when she is addressing God she ought not to be 
asserting her equality with men or trying to draw the attention 
of men: comp. Matt. vi. 6. For mpérov see Westcott on Heb. 
ii. 10, 


XI. 14,16] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 235 

14. A further argument, supporting the previous one. In- 
stinctively they must feel the impropriety; and then external 
nature confirms the instinctive feeling. Even if the internal 
feeling should not arise, does not even nature by itself show 
that, while doubtless man, being short-haired, is by Divine order 
unveiled, woman, being long-haired, is by Divine order veiled? 
Naturae debet respondere voluntas (Beng.).* While fanaticism 
defies nature, Christianity respects and refines it; and whatever 
shocks the common feelings of mankind is not likely to be 
right. At this period, civilized men, whether Jews, Greeks, or 
Romans, wore their hair short. ‘Long hair is a permanent 
endowment (dédo7ac) of woman, to serve as an enveloping 
mantle’ (Heb. i. 12 from Ps. ci. 27; Judg. viii. 26; Ezek. 
xvi. 13, xxvii. 7; Isa. lix. 17). Note the emphasis on dyvyp 
and yvv7, also on the clause introduced by d€. Nowhere else m 
Biblical Greek does xoudw occur. Milligan, Grk. Papyri, p. 84. 


16. This is best taken as concluding the subject of the 
veil; it makes a clumsy opening to the next subject. ‘But if 
any one seemeth to be (or is minded to be)+ contentious, we 
have no such custom, nor yet the Churches of God.’ There 
are people who are so fond of disputing that they will contest 
the clearest conclusions, and the Corinthians were fond of dis- 
putation. But the Apostle will not encourage them. If such 
should question the dictates of decorum and of nature in this 
matter, they may be told that the teachers have no such usage 
as permitting women to be unveiled,—a thing unheard of in 
Christian congregations. It is possible that jets means only 
himself, but he probably means that he knows of no Apostle 
who allows this. { 

Throughout the section he appeals to principles. The 
wearing or not wearing a veil may seem to be a small matter. 
Everything depends upon what the wearing or not wearing 
implies, and what kind of sanction the one practice or the 
other can claim. He does not use de about the matter; 


* Was the obscure metaphor of ‘the veil,’ which Dante (Purg. xxix. 27) 
uses of Eve, Non sofferse di star sotto alcun velo, suggested by the revolt 
of the women of Corinth against ‘‘standing under any veil” in public 
worship ? 

+ Comp. iii. 18, viii. 2, and especially xiv. 37, where we have a summary 
conclusion similar to this. 

+ Herveius interprets jets as ‘we Jews.’ Post rationes pontt auctoritatem, 
ut contentiosos vincat, yuia neque Judaismus hoc habuit, nec Ecclesia Det, 
ostendens quia neque Moyses neque Salvator sic tradidit, Atto has the same 
idea. ‘Nos’ propter Judaeos, ‘ Ecclesia’ dicit propter gentes. Quapropter, 
st hanc consuetudinem habetis, non solum non Christi, sed nec Moyst discip- 
ulos fore monstratis. Nowhere else in N.T. or LXX is @tAdveckos found, 
excepting Ezek. iii. 7, where all Israel are said to be such. 


236 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 17-34 


there is no intrinsic necessity (v 19): but he does use both 
opetde. (7, 10) and mpérov éori (13); for there is both moral 
obligation and natural fitness. His final appeal—to the practice 
of all congregations—would be of special weight in democratic 
Corinth. For at éxxAnoiac trod @eod comp. 2 Thess. i. 4. See 
Hort, Zhe Christian Ecclesia, pp. 108, 117, 120. There is no 
need to conjecture that v. 16 is an interpolation, or that 
suvyGea refers to contentiousness. Would St Paul think it 
necessary to say that Apostles have no habit of contentious- 
ness ? 

For Greek and Roman customs respecting the hair and veils, 
see Smith, Dict. of Ant. Artt. ‘Coma,’ ‘ Flammeum,’ ‘ Vestales.’ 
The cases in which males, both Greek and Roman, wore long hair 
do not interfere with the argument.* Such cases were either 
exceptional or temporary; and they were temporary because 
nature taught men otherwise. For men to wear their hair 
long, and for women to wear it short, for men to veil their 
heads in public assemblies, and for women not to do so, were 
alike attempts to obliterate natural distinctions of sex. In the 
Catacombs the men are represented with short hair. 


XI. 17-34. Disorders connected with the Lord’s Supper. 


There are abuses of a grave kind in your public worship ; 
a chronic state of dissension, and gross selfishness and 
excess in your love-feasts and celebrations of the Lord’s 
Supper. This profanation brings grievous judgments on 
you. Avert the judgments by putting a stop to the pro- 
Fanation. 


l7Now, in giving you this charge about the veiling of 
women, I do zo¢ commend you that your religious gatherings 
do you more harm than good. 138 First of all, when you meet 
as a Christian congregation, you are split into sets:—so I am 
told, and to some extent I am afraid that it is true. 1 Indeed, 
party-divisions among you can hardly be avoided if men of 
proved worth are not to be lost in the crowd. 

20 Well then, as to your religious gatherings: it cannot be 
said that it is the Zora’s Supper that youeat. 2! For everybody’s 
first thought is to be beforehand in getting his ow supper; and 
so, while the poor man who brings nothing cannot get enough even 


* Hom. JZ. ii. 472, 542; Hdt. i. 82, v. 72; Aristoph. Zy. 580. Cf. our 
Cavaliers. 


XI. 17-34 | DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 237 


to eat, the rich man who brings abundance takes a great deal too 
much even to drink. *?Surely you do not mean that you have no 
homes in which you can satisfy hunger and thirst? Or do you 
think that you need have no reverence for God’s congregation ; 
or that because a man is poor you may treat him with contempt ? 
What am I to say to you? Do you expect me to commend 
you? In this matter that is impossible. 

*3(uite impossible; for I know that you know better. I 
myself received from the Lord that which in turn I transmitted 
to you, namely, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He 
was being delivered up, took bread: 24and when He had given 
thanks, He brake it, and said, ‘This is My Body, which is for 
you. This do ye, in remembrance of Me.’ In like manner 
also the cup, after supper was over, saying, ‘This cup is the new 
covenant in virtue of My Blood. This do ye, as often as ye 
drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ 

26 Yes, He gave this command; for as often as you eat this 
bread and drink this cup, it is the death of the Lord that you 
are proclaiming,—nothing less than that,—until His return. 
27 It follows, therefore, that whoever eats the bread or drinks the 
cup of the Lord in a way that dishonours Him, shall be held 
responsible for profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord. 
28 But, in order to avoid this profanation, let a man scrutinize 
his own spiritual condition and his motives; then, and not till 
then, let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he 
who eats and drinks is thereby eating and drinking a sentence 
on himself, if he fails to recognize the sanctity of the Body. 
80 The proof of this is within your own experience; for it is 
because people fail to recognize this sanctity that so many of 
you are sick and ill, while not a few have died. *! But if we 
recognized our own condition and motives, we should escape this 
sentence. *? Yet, when we are thus sentenced, we are being 
chastened by the Lord, to save us from being involved in the 
final condemnation of the world. 

33S0 then, my brothers, at your religious gatherings for a 
common meal, wait until all are ready. If any one is too 
hungry to wait, let him stay at home and eat; so that your 
gatherings may not have these fatal results. All the other 
matters in which you need instruction I will regulate whenever 
I come. 


238 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | XI. 17 


The shocking desecration of the Lord’s Supper by the dis- 
orders which St Paul here censures was, no doubt, the primary 
reason why he is so severe in his condemnation of the conduct 
of those Corinthians who profaned it by their selfish mis- 
behaviour, but it was not the only reason for distress and 
indignation. ‘In the whole range of history there is no more 
striking contrast than that of the Apostolic Churches with the 
heathenism round them. They had shortcomings enough, it is 
true, and divisions and scandals not a few, for even apostolic 
times were no golden age of purity and primitive simplicity. 
Yet we can see that their fulness of life, and hope, and promise 
for the future was a new power in the world. Within their own 
limits they had solved almost by the way the social problem 
which baffled Rome, and baffles Europe still. They had lifted 
woman to her rightful place, restored the dignity of labour, 
abolished beggary, and drawn the sting of slavery. The secret 
of the revolution is that the selfishness of race and class was 
forgotten in the Supper of the Lord, and a new basis for society 
found in love of the visible image of God in men for whom 
Christ died” (Gwatkin, Zarly Church History, p. 73). The 
Corinthian offenders were reviving the selfishness of class, were 
treating with contumely the image of God visible in their fellow- 
men, and were thus bringing into serious peril the best results 
of this blessed revolution. The Apostle does not hesitate to 
declare (vv. 30-32) that this evil work of theirs is bringing upon 
them the manifest judgments of God. 

It is worth noting that he appeals to what ‘ the Lord Jesus’ 
did at the Supper, not to what ‘Jesus’ did. There is no basis 
for the hypothesis that St Paul did not regard Jesus as the Son 
of God until after His Resurrection, comp. v. 4, 5. See Intro- 
duction, § ‘ Doctrine.’ 


17. Todto 6€ mapayyéAXwv odk érawvd. The reading is some- 
what doubtful (see below), as also is the meaning of rotro. If 
rovro refers to the charge which he gives respecting the Love- 
feasts (28-34), then the interval between this preface and the 
words which it anticipates is awkwardly prolonged. It is not 
impossible that rodro refers to the charge about women wearing 
veils.* The connexion between the two subjects is close, both 
being concerned with proper behaviour at public worship. ‘Now 
In giving you this charge I do not praise [you], that your 
religious gatherings do you harm instead of good.’ It is an 


* There is similar doubt as to the scope of the rodro in vii. 6, and the 
air in ix. 3. Here the doubt is considerable. The rapayy. about veiling 
was prefaced by praise (v. 2): and rofro dé may introduce another mapavy. 
where praise is impossible ; ‘In giving ¢hzs charge I have no praise to give.’ 


XI.17-19] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 239 


understatement, purposely made in contrast to v. 2, that he 
does not praise them. He censures them severely. What was 
intended for their wealth they had made an occasion of falling. 
These gatherings, instead of quickening their spiritual life, had 
led to grievous misconduct and consequent suffering. For ¢is, 
of result, comp. Col. iil. ro. 


The evidence for tapayyé\Xwv ovk éraivw is somewhat stronger than for 
mapayyéd\w ovK éraivwy. B is neutral with wapayyé\Awv ovk éralywy, and 
D with mapayyé\\w ovk éraivw: Vulg. praectpio non laudans. There is 
no juds in the Greek ; but neither AV. nor RV. put ‘yoz’ in italics. 

Both the Attic xpetrrov (vii. 9) and the un-Attic xpetcoov (here and 
vii. 38) are well attested : 70 4jacov here only ; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 15. It is 
possible that both xpetoooy and #ocov were pronounced in a similar way 
(Areesson heesson) ; if so, we have a play upon sound. 


18. ‘For, to begin with.’ The Apostle hastens to justify his 
refusal to give praise. The zparov pév has no devrepov dé or 
exeita d€ afterwards, and possibly there is no antithesis; but 
some find it in the section about spiritual gifts (xii. 1f.): ef. 
Onl. 5, Ul, 2, X» 1, Se P39) 2) Core mia tre, blassa tas 
7. T2s 

ev exk\yoia. ‘In assembly,’ ze. in a gathering of the members 
of the Corinthian Church. ‘This use is at once classical and a 
return to the original force of gaha/” (Hort, The Chr. Eccles. 
p. 118): xiv. 19, 28, 35 ; comp. 3 John 6 and év ovvaywyy, John 
vi. 59, Xvill. 22. ‘Church’ in the sense of a building for public 
worship cannot be meant ; there were no such buildings. 

dxovw oxiopata ev piv Grdpxew. ‘I continually hear (pres.) 
that dissensions among you prevail’ (not simply etvac) : these splits 
are the rule. In the Love-feasts they seem to have been chiefly 
social, between rich and poor. Possibly what St James con- 
demns (ii. 1-4) took place; the wealthy got the best places at 
the tables. Yet neither oxicpara (see On i. 10) nor atpéoes are 
separations from the Church, but dissensions within it. Wherever 
people deliberately choose (aipety) their own line independently 
of authority, there is aipeous: Gal. v. 20, 

pépos te mortedw. ‘The Apostle has the love which ‘hopeth 
all things’ (xiii. 7), and he will not believe that all that he hears 
to their discredit is true ; szfz sermone utitur (Beng.). 


The reading év 77 éxxX. (TR., ‘in the Church’ AV.) is found only in a 
few cursives. There is no reason for suspecting that év éxxX. (all uncials) 


is an interpolation. ; 
pépos Te is the accusative of the extent to which the action applies : 


comp. mdvra maow dpécxw (x. 33). We might have had éx pépous (xiii. 9, 
12). 


19. Set yap kal aipéces. Comp. Matt. xviii. 7. In the 
nature of things, if there are splits of any kind, these are sure 


240 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XI. 19, 20 


to settle down into parties,—factions with self-chosen views. 
Human nature being what it is, and Corinthian love of faction 
being so great, if a division once became chronic, it was certain 
to be intensified. But here perhaps there is not much difference 
between oy(opara and aipécas. Justin M. (Z~y. 35) mixes the 
words évovrat oxicpara kai aip. with Matt. xxiv. 5, I1, 24, Vil. 15, 
and attributes them to our Lord. Comp. Clem. Hom. xvi. 21, 
and see Resch, p. 100. For atpeous comp. Acts v. 17, xv. 5, 
XXVi. 5, etc. 

iva [kal] of Sdxipor pavepot yévwvrat. Divine Providence turns 
this evil tendency to good account: it is the means of causing 
the trusty and true to become recognizable. Either by coming 
to the front in the interests of unity, or by keeping aloof from 
all divisions, the more stable characters will become manifest : 
2 Thess. ii. 11, 12. To have religious zeal, without becoming a 
religious partizan, is a great proof of true devotion. Contrast 
dddximos (1X, 27). 

DFG, Latt. omit év tui before elva. BD, Latt. insert cal before ol 
décor: NACEFGKLP, Syrr. omit. The 66xyuo are those who have 
been ‘accepted’ after being tested like metals or stones (Gen. xxiii. 16) ; 
hence ‘proved’ and ‘approved’ (Rom. xvi. 10; 2 Cor. x. 18, xiii. 7). 
See Origen, Cov. Cels. iii. 13, Phzlocalia xvi. 2. Quite needlessly, some 
suspect that va. . . év duty is an interpolation. 


20. Luvepxopevwy obv Sudv éwt 75 adté. ‘When therefore you 
come together to one place’ (Acts i. 15, il. 1, 44, ill. 1), ‘when 
you are assembled év éxxAno‘a, z.e. for a religious purpose.’ Or 
éxi ro a’ré might (less probably) mean ‘for the same object.’ 
The place is not yet a building set apart. In any case, émi ro 
av7o emphasizes the contrast between the external union and the 
internal dissension. Compare vii. 5, xiv. 23. 

ok €otiv kuptaxdy Seimvov dayetv. ‘The adjective is emphatic 
by position: ‘there is no eating a Zora’s supper.’ A supper they 
may eat, but it is not the Lord’s: ot« éorw, ‘there is no such 
thing,’ for such conduct as theirs excludes it. Hence ovx éorw 
may be rendered ‘it is not possible,’ zon /icet (Ecclus. xiv. 16) ; 
but this is not necessary. At first, the Eucharist proper seems to 
have followed the Agape or Love-feast, being a continuation of 
it. Later the Eucharist preceded and was transferred from 
evening to morning. Here, xvptaxdy detxrvov probably includes 
both, the whole re-enactment of the Last Supper including the 
Eucharist. Placuit Spiritui Sancto ut in honorem tanti sacramenti 
in os Christiant prius Dominicum corpus intraret quam exteri cibi 
(Aug. £/. cxviii. 6, 7, ad Januar.). See Hastings, DB. m1. 
p- 157; Smith, D. Chr. Ant. 1. p. 40; Ency. Bibl. u. 1424. We 
cannot be sure from the use of xuptaxdv instead of rod xupiov that 
the name kvpiaxdy detrvov was already in use. The expression 


XI, 20-22] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 241 


must have had a beginning, and this may be the first use of it. 
Inscriptions and papyri show that, as early as a.D. 68, xupiaxds 
was in use in the sense of ‘ pertaining to the Emperor,’ ‘imperial’ 
(Deissmann, Wew Light on the N.T. p. 82, Bible Studies, p. 217, 
Light, p. 361). The word detrvov occurs only here and Rev. 
xix. 9, 17, Outside the Gospels; in LXX, only in Daniel and 
4 Macc. 


21. Exactos yap 16 idtoy Setmvov mpohapBdver. ‘For each one 
takes before the rest (instead of with them) his ow supper’: he 
anticipates the partaking in common, and thus destroys the 
whole meaning and beauty of the ordinance. It was thus not 
even a xowov detzvov, much less xupiaxdv. The év 76 gayeiv is 
not an otiose addition: it is a mere eating, which he might just 
as well or better have done elsewhere and elsewhen.* 

kal ds pev mea. ‘The consequence is that one man cannot 
even satisfy his hunger, while another even drinks to excess.’ 
These are probably respectively the rich and the poor. The 
poor brought little or nothing to the common meal, and got 
little or nothing from the rich, who brought plenty ; while some 
of the rich, out of their abundant supplies, became drunk. There 
is a sharp antithesis between deficiency in necessary food and 
excess in superfluous drink. There is no need to water down 
the usual meaning of peOvew (Matt. xxiv. 49; John ii. 10; 
Acts ii. 15; 1 Thess. v. 7). Even in a heathen épavos such 
selfish and disgusting behaviour would have been considered 
shameful, as the directions given by Socrates show; they are 
very similar to those of St Paul (Xen. Wem. m1. iv. 1). Certainly 
such meetings must have been ‘for the worse’; hungry poor 
meeting intoxicated rich, at what was supposed to be a supper of 
the Lord! In these gatherings the religious element was far 
more important than the social; but the Corinthians had 
destroyed both. For this late use of the relative, 65 pev.. . 
és Se... comp. Rom. ix. 21; 2 Tim. Umegos Dati xxi 38: 
xxii. 5, xxv. 15. Coincidence is implied. 

For mpo\auBdavee (RN BCDEFGKLP) A and some cursives have 


mpoohauBaver, the active of which does not occur in the N.T., except as a 
variant here and Acts xxvii. 34. 


22. pi yap oixias otk éxete. ‘For surely you do not mean 
that you have not got houses to eat and to drink in!’ Comp. 
py ovK Exomev (ix. 4, 5, 6), and eis 70. . . éoOiew (viii. 10); and 


* Comp. ‘‘ And no prophet that orders a table in the spirit eats of it 
himself: but if he does, he is a false prophet” (Dzdache xi. 9). This calling 
for a Love-feast in a state of ecstasy (€v mvetuarc) is a curious possibility, 
which had probabiy been experienced. Only a false prophet would do this 
in order to get food for himself. 


16 


242 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | XI. 22, 23 


see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2702 6. ‘Well, then, if that is 
not true (and of course it is not), there is only one alternative,’ 
which is introduced by 7. ‘Ye despise the congregation that is 
assembled for the worship of God, and ye put the poor to shame.’ 
They treated a religious meal as if it were a licentious entertain- 
ment, and therein exposed the poverty of those who were in need. 
There can be little doubt that, as of éxovres=‘the rich,’ ot py 
éxovres = ‘the poor.’ Here it might mean ‘those who have not 
houses for meals’ (Alford); so also Wiclif, ‘han noon’; but this 
is very improbable. The rod @cot is added with solemnity (z. 16, 
x. 32) to give emphasis to the profanity. The addition is frequent 
in the two earliest groups of the Pauline Epistles (Hort, Ze Chr. 
Eccles. pp. 103, 108, 117): xatappovetre, as Rom. ii. 4; Matt. 
XVili. 10; Karawryvvere, as Rom. v. 5. The majority of the 
Corinthian Christians would be poor.* 

Ti eimw Gpiv; émawéow pas; Deliberative subjunctives : 
‘What am I to say to you? Am I to praise you?’ The é& 
tour» may be taken with what precedes (AV., RV.), or with 
what follows (Tisch., WH., Ell.). The latter seems to be better, 
as limiting the censure to this particular, and also as preparing 
for what follows. 


23. éyw yap mapéAaBov dd tod Kupiov. ‘I cannot praise you, 
Jor what Z received from the Lord, and also delivered to you, 
was this.’ We cannot tell ow St Paul received this. Neither 
does the éy# imply that the communication was direct, nor does 
the do that it was not direct, although, if it was direct, we 
should probably have had apa (Gal. i. 12; 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1; 
etc.). The éyo balances tiv: the Apostle received and trans- 
mitted to them this very thing, so that both know exactly what 
took place. He was a sure link in a chain which reached from 
the Lord Himself to them. They did not receive it from the 
Lord, but they received it from one who had so received it, and 
therefore they have no excuse. This is one of the zapaddcets 
which they professed to be holding fast (v. 2). See Ramsay, 
Exp. Times, April 1910; Jiilicher, Paulus u. Jesus, p. 30. 

_ It is urged that ina matter of such moment a direct revela- 
tion to the Apostle is not incredible. On the other hand, why 
assume a supernatural communication when a natural one was 
ready at hand? It would be easy for St Paul to learn every- 
thing from some of the Twelve. But what is important is, 
not the mode of the communication, but the source. In some 
way or other St Paul received this from Christ, and its authen- 


* Rutherford translates ; ‘Or do you think that you need stand on no 


ceremony with the Church of God; that because men are poor you may 
affront them ?’ 


XI. 23, 24| DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 243 


ticity cannot be gainsaid; but his adding amd rod Kupéov is no 
guide as to the_way in which he received it. More important 
also than the mode are the contents of the communication, and 
it is to them that rapaAapPBavew frequently points (1 Thess. ii. 13 ; 
2 Thess. ii. 6; 1 Con xy.1a,) 3) sce Lightfoot on Gali. 31,13. 
It certainly does not point to anything zwz7ztfen: St Paul does 
not say that he had vead what he delivered to them. See 
Knowling, Zhe Testimony of St Paul to Christ, pp. 275 f. Zahn 
and Schmiedel are here agreed that St Paul is appealing to 
historical tradition. See also Camb. Bibl. Ess. pp. 336f.; 
Mansfield College Essays, pp. 48 f. 

3 kal tapédwka piv. ‘Which I also delivered to you.’ 
He transmitted to them the very thing which he had received 
from the Lord, so that they were well aware of what ought to 
have made these disorders impossible. This would be St Paul’s 
own reply to the assertion that he, and not Jesus, is the founder 
of Christianity. 

év TH vuKTi 4 Tapedidero. ‘In the night in which He was 
being delivered up.’ St Paul mentions the sad solemnity of 
the occasion in contrast to the irreverent revelry of the Cor- 
inthians. Neither AV. nor RV. keeps the same translations 
for wapadidswue in this verse, nor marks the imperfect. The 
delivery to His enemies had already begun and was going on 
at the very time when the Lord instituted the Eucharist. 
Moreover, to translate ‘was betrayed’ confines the meaning to 
the action of Judas ; whereas the Father’s surrender of the Son 
is included, and perhaps is chiefly meant, and the Son’s self- 
sacrifice may also be included (E. A. Abbott, Paradosis, S§ 1155, 
1202, 1417). Itis plain that St Paul assumes that his readers 
are acquainted with the details of the Passion; and the pre- 
cision with which he writes here and xv. 3-8 is evidence that 
“he is drawing from a well-furnished store” (Sanday, DCG. 1. 
p. 888). He himself is well acquainted with the chief facts in 
the life of Christ (A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of 
St Paul, p. 89; Fletcher, Zhe Conversion of St Paul, pp. 55 f.). 

€haBev dptov. ‘Took a loaf,’ one of the thin cakes of bread 
used for the Paschal meal. It was perhaps more like our 
biscuit or oatcake than ordinary loaves. Hastings, DCG. 1. 


pp. 230 f. 


24. edxapioticas exdacev. All four accounts of the Institu. 
tion have éxAacev here, a detail of Divinely-appointed ritual. 
Luke also has edyapioryjoas, for which Mark and Matthew 
substitute etAoyjoas. The two words doubtless refer to the 
same utterance of Christ, in which He gave thanks and blessed 
God, and both contain the significant eb: comp. ebayyéduor, 


244 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 24 


evooxia, and see T. S. Evans ad /oc. Mark has these features, 
which are omitted here; ‘as they were eating,’ ‘Take ye,’ 
‘they all drank of it,’ ‘which is shed for many.’ For the third 
of these Matthew substitutes ‘Drink ye all of it’; he has the 
other three. Luke has none of them. Mark, Matthew, and 
Luke have cixapucrjocas, of the cup also, and here dcattws 
covers it. ‘The three, moreover, give, what is omitted here, ‘I 
say to you I will in no wise drink of the fruit of the vine until’ 

. ‘the Kingdom.’ The details which are common to all 
four accounts are (1) the taking bread, (2) the giving thanks, 
(3) the breaking, (4) the words, ‘This is My Body,’ (5) the 
cup; and, if the disputed passage in Luke be retained, (6) the 
words ‘blood’ and ‘covenant.’ The disputed passage is almost 
verbatim as vv. 24, 25 here, from 76 trép tov . . . aipar. 

Of the four accounts of the Institution this is the earliest 
that has come down to us, and the words of our Lord which 
are contained in it are the earliest record of any of His utter- 
ances; for this Epistle was written before any of the Gospels. 
It is, however, possible that Mark used a document in giving 
his account, and this document might be earlier than this 
Epistle. 

Touré pou éotiv Td cHpa Td bmep Syay. All carnal ideas 
respecting these much-discussed words are excluded by the 
fact that the Institution took place before the Passion. Our 
Lord’s human Body was present, and His Blood was not yet 
shed. What is certain is that those who rightly receive the 
consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist receive spiritually 
the Body and the Blood of Christ. How this takes place is 
beyond our comprehension, and it is vain to claim knowledge 
which cannot be possessed, or to attempt to explain what 
cannot be explained. ‘If there is a point on which the witness 
of Scripture, of the purest ecclesiastical tradition, and of our 
own Church, is more express and uniform than another, it is 
the peculiar and transcendent quality of the blessing which 
this Sacrament both represents and exhibits, and consequently 
of the Presence by which that blessing is conferred. How this 
Presence differs from that of which we are assured by our 
Lord’s promise, where two or three are gathered together in 
His name—whether only in degree or in kind—it is beyond 
the power of human language to define and of human thought 
to conceive. It is a subject fit, not for curious speculation, 
but for the exercise of pious meditation and devotional feeling ; 
and it is one in which there is a certainty that the highest 
flight of contemplation will always fall short of the Divine 
reality” (Bishop Thirlwall, Charges, vol. i. p. 278; see also 
pp. 245, 246). “I could not consent to make our Church 


XI. 24] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 245 


answerable for a dogma committing those who hold it to the 
belief that, in the institution of the Supper, that which our 
Lord held in His hand, and gave to His disciples, was nothing 
less than His own Person, Body, Soul, and Godhead” (JZéid. 
vol. ii. p. 251; see also the appendix on Transubstantiation, 
pp. 281f.). The notes of Ellicott and Evans ad /oc., with 
Gould on Mark xiv. 22; Westcott on John vi. and xiii. ; Gore, 
Dissertations, pp. 230f.; Hastings, DZ. ii. pp. 148f., with 
the bibliography there given, may be consulted. Excellent 
remarks and summaries of doctrine will be found in Beet, 
A Manual of Theology, pp. 380-96. Happily, no theory of 
the manner of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist is necessary 
for the fruitful reception of it, and to have this demonstrated 
would not make us better Christians, any more than a know- 
ledge of the chemical properties of bread makes us better able 
to digest it. Stanley, Christian Institutions, ch. vi. 

TOUTO ToleiTe cig THY Euhy dvduvyow. ‘Perform this action 
(continue to take bread, give thanks, and break it) in remem- 
branee, of Me’ (Num. x. 103. Psi, sexvit, my lees a) ens 
implies that hereafter He is to be absent from sight. The 
words are not in Mark or Matthew, nor in Luke, except in 
the disputed verses. ‘Therefore the command to continue the 
celebration of the Lord’s Supper rests upon the testimony of 
St Paul. This, however, does not for a moment imply that 
he was the first to repeat the celebration, or the first to teach 
Christians to do so. This passage plainly implies that repeated 
celebrations were already a firmly established practice. The 
authority of St Paul was quite inadequate to this immense 
result. Nothing less than the authority of Christ would have 
sufficed to produce it. See Knowling, pp. 279 f. 

The proposal to give to rovro wovetre the meaning ‘sacrifice 
this’ must be abandoned. As the Romanist commentator 
Estius says, it is plane praeter mentem Scripturae.* So also 
Westcott; “I have not the least doubt that rotro zoveire can 
mean only do this act (including the whole action of hands 
and lips), and not sacrifice this; and that the Latin also can 
have only the same rendering” (in a letter quoted in his Zif, 
Il. p. 353): and Bachmann, rotro geht auf die ganze Handlung, 
wie sie durch das Tun Jesu und seiner Jiinger dargestellt ist: 
and Herveius; ‘Hoc facite, id est, corpus meum accipite et 
manducate per successtonem temports usque tn finem saeculi, in 
memoriam passionis meae. See Ellicott and Goudge ad Joc; 
Expositor, 3rd_ series, vii. 441; T. K. Abbott, Zssays on the 


* Hoc facite, id est accipite et date (Card. Hugo de Sto. Caro, d. 1263); 
Mandat fiert quod ipse fecit, scilicet accipere panem, gratias agere, frangere, 
consecrare, sumere, ac dare (Card. Thomas de Vio, Caietanus, d. 1534). 


246 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 24, 25 


Original Texts of O. and N.T. p. 110; A Reply to Mr. Supple’s 
and other Criticisms; and notes on Luke xxii. 19 in the Jn, 
Crit. Com. p. 497. 

Edwards translates thy épihv dvdpvnow, ‘JZy commemora- 
tion,’ in contrast to that of Moses (x. 2), thus making tiv éyqv 
parallel to xawy (v. 25). See Blass, Gv.§ 48. 7. The Eucharist 
perpetually calls to mind the redemption by Christ from the 
bondage of sin, as the Passover recalled the redemption from 
the bondage of Egypt. Christ did not say, ‘in remembrance 
of My death.’ The recorded words, ‘as My memorial,’ are of 
wider import; they imply ‘in remembrance of all that I have 
done for you and all that I am to you.’ The early Christians 
seem to have regarded the Eucharist as a commemoration of 
the Resurrection as well as the Death, for they selected the 
first day of the week for this memorial. Wetstein compares 
the address of T. Manlius to the troops after his colleague 
Decius had devoted himself to secure their success; Comsurgite 
nunc, memores consulis pro vestra victoria morte occumbentis 
(Livy, viii. 10). 

AdBere, pdyere (C7K LP, Syrr. Aeth.) are an interpolation from 
Matt. xxvi. 26; S% ABC* DEFG, Lat-Vet. Aegyptt. Arm. omit. After 
70 brép buav, NSC7EF GKLP insert «Aduevov, D* inserts Opurropuevor, 
Vulg. (guod . . . tradetur) and some other versions have a rendering 
which implies didduevov. S%* ABC* 17 and other witnesses omit. The 
interpolation of any of these words weakens the nervosa sententia (Beng.), 


70 bmép buwv, which means ‘ for your salvation’ (Mark x. 45). AY. inserts 
‘Take, eat,’ and ‘broken’; RV. gives the latter a place in the margin. 


25. woavtws Td totypiov. He acted with the cup as with 
the bread: He took it, gave thanks, and administered it to 
the disciples. ‘Ze cup’ means ‘the usual cup,’ the well- 
known one (x. 16). The addition of pera 7d deurvjoar shows 
that the bread was distributed during the meal, éo6:dvtwy airév 
(Mark xiv. 22): but it was after supper was over, postguam 
caenatum est (Aug.), not postguam coenavit (Vulg.), that the 
cup was administered. Perhaps the Apostle is pointing out 
that the cup, against which they had so grievously offended 
by intoxication, was no part of the meal, but a solemn addition 
to it. But we must not translate, ‘the after-supper cup,’ which 
would require 76 pera 7d 8. rorypiov. Thomas Aquinas would 
give a meaning to the fact that the bread was distributed 
during the meal, while the cup was not administered till the 
meal was over. The one represents the Incarnation, which 
took place while the observances of the Law still had force; 
but the other represents the Passion, which put an end to the 
observances of the Law. And Cornelius 4 Lapide regards 
Christ’s taking the cup into His hands as a token of His 


XI. 25] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 247 


voluntarily taking death for us. Such thoughts are admissible, 
if it is not maintained that they are the meaning which is 
intended in Scripture.* 

Todro Td moTyptov * kath SiabyKy éotiv év TH End aipare. 
Hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine. ‘The position 
of é€oriv is against combining év TO é€u@ aipate with 4 Kaw 
d:aOyxn. Rather, ‘This cup is the new covenant, and it is so 
in virtue of My Blood.’ ‘In My Blood’ is an expansion or 
explanation of the ‘is,’ and is equivalent to an adverb such 
as ‘mystically.’ The cup represents that which it contains, 
and the wine which it contains represents the Blood which 
seals the covenant. The Atonement is implied, without which 
doctrine the Lord’s Supper is scarcely intelligible. Only 
St Paul (and Luke?) has the xawy. The covenant is ‘fresh’ 
as distinct from the former covenant which is now obsolete. 
It is xawy in its contents, in the blessings which it secures, 
viz. forgiveness and grace: and 7T@ éu@ aip. is in contrast to 
the blood with which the old covenant was confirmed (Exod. 
xxiv. 8). See Jer. xxxi. 31, the only place in O.T. in which 
diaOyKy Kawvy occurs. The choice of diabyxy, rather than cvvOyj«n, 
which is the common word for covenant, is no doubt deliberate, 
for ovv@yxn might imply that the parties to the covenant con- 
tracted on equal terms. Between God and man that is impossible. 
When He enters into a contract He disposes everything, as a 
man disposes of his property by will: hence diabyxy often 
means a testament or will. In the LXX ov/@yxy is rare; in 
the N.T. it does not occur. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 299. On 
the meaning of ‘blood,’ ‘which is the life,’ in connexion with 
Christ’s Sacrifice, see Westcott, Hebrews, pp. 293 f.; Epp. of 
St John, pp. 34 f.; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 89, 91. 

TodTo movette x.t.A. St Paul alone has these words of the 
cup. In the disputed passage in Luke they are wanting. 

dodkis édv mivgyte. This makes the command very compre- 
hensive ; guotiescungue: Comp. dcdkis éav GeAnowow (Rev. xi. 6). 
Every time that they partake of the sacramental cup (rodro 76 
motnpiov), they are to do as He has done in remembrance of 
Him. He does not merely give permission; He commands. 
It is perverse to interpret this as a general command, referring 
to all meals at which anything is drunk. What precedes and 


* On the other hand, ‘‘ the crude suggestion of Professor P. Gardner (Zhe 
Origin of the Lords Supper, 1893), that St Paul borrowed the idea of the 
Eucharist from the Eleusinian Mysteries, which he may have learned about 
at Corinth,” is not admissible. The theory ignores the evidence of the 
Mark-tradition, and involves misapprehension of the Eleusinian Mysteries. 
See E. L. Hicks, Studza Biblica, iv. 12. Ramsay thinks that the interval 
between the bread and the cup ‘‘was occupied with instruction in the 
meaning of the symbolism” (Zxf. Zzmes, March 1910). 


oF 


248 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XI. 25 


follows limits the meaning to ‘the cup of blessing.’ The Lord 
commands that the Supper be often repeated, and His Apostle 
charges those who repeat it to keep in view Him who instituted 
it, and who died to give life to them. In liturgies these words 
are transferred to Christ; ‘ye proclaim JZy death till Z come.’ 

With regard to the Lord’s presence in Holy Communion, 
Bishop Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of York, 8th Oct. rgoo ; 
“The circumstances of the Institution are, we may say, spiritu- 
ally reproduced. The Lord Himself offers His Body given and 
His Blood shed. But these gifts are not either separately (as 
the Council of Trent) or in combination Himself .. . I shrink 
with my whole nature from speaking of such a mystery, but it 
seems to me to be vital to guard against the thought of the 
Presence of the Lord ‘in or under the forms of bread and wine.’ 
From this the greatest practical errors follow” (Life and Letters 
of B. F. Westcott, 11. p. 351). 

It is very remarkable that “‘the words of institution” differ 
widely in the four accounts. ‘There is substantial agreement in 
meaning; but the only clause in which all four agree is ‘This 
is My Body’; and even here there is a difference of order 
between Todrd ov éoriy 16 cGpa (1 Cor.) and Toto éorw To cbpa 
pov (Mark, Matt, Luke). It is quite clear that in all four 
accounts these words are words of administration, not of con- 
secration. This is specially manifest in Mark, where they are 
preceded by ‘Take ye’ (Adfere), and in Matt., where they are 
preceded by ‘Take, eat’ (AdBere, ddyere). The same may be 
said of ‘This is My Blood’ (Mark, Matt.): they are words of 
administration, not of consecration. The consecration has 
preceded, and would seem to be included in edyapiotycas or 
ethoynoas. ‘All liturgies of every type agree in bearing witness 
to the fact that the original form of consecration was a thanks- 
giving”; and the form of words in which our Lord gave thanks 
has not been preserved. In the Eastern liturgies “the words of 
institution were not recited as of themselves effecting the con- 
secration, but rather as the authority in obedience to which the 
rite ts performed” (W. C. Bishop, Ch. Quart. Rev., July 1908, 
pp. 387-92). In the main lines of Eucharistic teaching in the 
fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, ‘‘The moment of consecration 
is associated with the invocation of God the Word (Serapion, 1), 
or with the invocation of God the Holy Ghost (St. Cyril of 
Jerusalem, Caz. xxi. 3), or with the Invocation of the Holy 
Trinity (/d7d. xix. 7),* or with the recital of the words recorded 
to have been used by our Lord at the institution (Pseudo- 
Ambrose, De Sacr. iv. 21-23)” (Darwell Stone, Ch. Quart. Rev. 


__” To this may be added the still earlier testimony of Origen; see on 
vil. 5. 


XI. 25, 26] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 249 


Oct. 1908, p. 36). Cyril of Jerusalem quotes St Paul as saying 
(uv. 25), “And having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 
Take, drink, this is My Blood,” which is wide of St Paul’s words, 
and agrees exactly with none of the other accounts (Cav. xxi. 1). 
It would thus appear that we know the exact words of institu- 
tion only very imperfectly, and the exact words of consecration 
not at all. Again, just as we do not know the manner of our 
Lord’s Presence in the rite as a whole, so we do not know 
“the supreme moment of consecration.” It is lawful to believe 
that we should xo¢ be in a better position for making a good use 
of this mystery if all these things zweve known.* 


26. oadkis yap éav eo@inte. In Afost. Const. viii. 12, 16 
these words are put into Christ’s mouth, with the change, “ Zp 
death, till Zcome.” The ydp introduces the Apostle’s explana- 
tion of the Lord’s command to continue making this commemor- 
ative act. Or possibly yép refers to the whole passage (23-25) ; 
“Such being the original Institution, it follows that as often as 
ye eat,” etc. To make the ydp co-ordinate with the yap of 
v. 23, as giving an additional reason for ov« érawé, is very 
forced. St Paul gives no directions as to 4ow frequently the 
Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated, but he implies that it is to be 
done frequently, in order to keep the remembrance of the Lord 
fresh. We may conjecture that at Corinth celebrations had been 
frequent, and that it was familiarity with them that had led to 
their being so dishonoured. By ‘this bread’ (rév dprov rodrov) 
would seem to be meant bread used in the manner prescribed 
by Christ (vv. 23, 24). 

The rodro with 7d worjpiov (‘ ¢hz’s cup,’ AV.) is a manifest interpolation : 
s* A BC* D* FG, Latt. Arm. omit. Note the chiasmus between éc6/nre 
and mivyre, but the change of order seems to have no significance. What 


is significant is the addition of kal 7d worjpiov wivnre, which can hardly be 
reconciled with the practice of denying the cup to the laity. 


tov Odvatoy tod Kupiou katayyéAdete. ‘Ye proclaim (‘shew’ 
is inadequate) continually (pres. indic.) the death of the Lord.’ 
The Eucharist is an acfed sermon, an acted proclamation of the 
death which it commemorates ;+ but it is possible that there 
is reference to some exfression of belief in the atoning death of 
Christ as being a usual element in the service. The verb is 
indicative, not imperative. 

axpt ob €\@n. The Eucharist looks backwards to the Cruci- 


* See art. Adendmahi in Schiele, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegen- 
wart, in which the doubtful points in the history of the institution are clearly 
stated ; also Plummer, S. A/atthew, pp. 361 f. ; Dobschiitz, Probleme d. Ap. 
Zeitalters, p. 73; Hastings, D&. iii. p. 146, DCG. 11. p. 66. 

+ Comp. Cyprian (De zelo et livore, 17); De sacramento crucis et cibum 
sumts et potum, 


250 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XI. 26, 27 


fixion and forwards to the Return: hoc mysterium duo tempora 
extrema conjungit (Beng.). But at the Second Advent Euchar- 
ists will come to an end, for the commemoration of the absent 
ceases when the absent returns. ‘‘ No further need of symbols 
of the Body, when the Body itself appears” (Theodoret). Then 
instead of their drinking in memory of Him, He will drink with 
them in His Kingdom (Matt. xxvi. 29). 


The dv between dp: or dxpis ob} and é\6y is not likely to be genuine: 
s* ABC D* F and Fathers omit. If it were genuine, it would indicate that 
the Coming is uncertain, and this can hardly be the Apostle’s meaning. 
How near the Coming may be is not here in question; but Eucharists 
must continue till then. 


27. dote ... Evoxos éotar. ‘Consequently ... he will be 
guilty.’ Seeing that partaking of the bread and of the cup is 
a proclaiming of the Lord’s death, partaking unworthily must 
be a grievous sin. No definition of ‘unworthily’ is given; but 
the expression covers all that is incompatible with the intention 
of Christ in instituting the rite. It is quite certain that selfish 
and greedy irreverence is incompatible. But what follows shows 
that not only external behaviour but an inward attitude of soul 
is included. There must be brotherly love towards all and sure 
faith in Christ. Weinel fails to notice this (p. 259). 

# wivy. As the cup followed the bread at a considerable 
interval, it was possible to receive one unworthily without 
receiving the other at all. In either case the whole sacrament 
was profaned. It is on the use of 7 here, and not xaé, that an 
argument is based for communion in one kind only; and it is 
the only one that can be found in Scripture. But the argument 
is baseless. Because profaning one element involves profaning 
both, it does not follow that receiving one element worthily is 
the same as worthily receiving both.* It is eating this bread 
and drinking the cup that proclaims the death of the Lord 
(v. 26): we have no right to assume that eating without drinking, 
or vice versa, will suffice. The whole passage, especially vv. 22, 
26, 28, 29, may be called proof that we are to eat and drink. 
And see Blass, § 77. 11 on the quasi-copulative sense which 7 
has in such sentences: ve/ (Vulg.), aut (Calvin). 

74 ToTipiov Tod Kupiou. The cup which has reference to the 
Lord and brings us into communion with Him, as the ‘cup of 
demons’ (rorypiov daipoviwv) brings the partakers into com- 
munion with them (x. 21): comp. xuptaxoy Setrvov (v. 20). No- 
where else in N.T. does dévagéfws occur: in vi. 2 we have dvdéuos. 

Evoxos €oTat Tod owpatos x.t.A. ‘Shall be under guilt of 

* To break one commandment is to break the whole Law, but to keep one 


command is not to keep the whole Law. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 
2759 f., and comp. # in Rom. i. 21. 


XI. 27, 28] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 251 


violating, be guilty of a sin against, the Body and the Blood of 
the Lord.’ The dignity of that of which they partake (x. 16) is 
the measure of the dignity which their irreverence profanes. 
He does not say évoxos é€otat tov Oavdrov t. K., par facit, quasi 
Christum trucidaret (Grotius). The guilt is rather that of 
deliberate injury or insult to the king’s effigy or seal, or profane 
treatment of a crucifix. Dishonour to the symbols is dishonour 
to that which they represent; and to use the bread and the 
wine as the Corinthians used them was to treat the memorials 
of Christ’s death, and therefore that which they commemorated, 
with insult. 


The use of évoxos is varied: c. gen. of the offence (Mark iii. 39), of 
that which is violated (here and Jas. ii. 10), and of the penalty (Mark 
xiv. 64; Heb. ii. 15); ¢. dat. of that which is violated (Deut. xix. 10), 
and of the tribunal (Matt. v. 21, 22). 

After rov dprov, KLP, Vulg. AV. add rofrov: NABCDEFG, 
Lat.-Vet. RV. omit. For #4 before mivy A, Aegypt. Aeth. AV. read xal, 
a manifest correction. After dvatiws, DL, Pesh. Goth. add rod Kupiov. 
A few unimportant witnesses support the TR. in omitting 70d before 
aiwaros. The AV. inserts ‘this’ before ‘cup of the Lord,’ without 
authority. 


28. Soxipalerw S€ avOpwros éautév. ‘But (in order to avoid 
all this profanity) let a man (iv. 1; Gal. vi. 1) prove himself?’ 
(1 Thess. v. 21; Gal. vi. 4). Let him see whether he is in a 
proper state of mind for commemorating and proclaiming the 
death of the Lord. The emphasis is on doxwalérw. It is 
assumed that the result of the testing will either directly or 
indirectly be satisfactory. This is sometimes implied in doxipya- 
few as distinct from zepafew: Lightfoot on 1 Thess. v. 21; 
Trench, Syz. § xxiv. The man will either find that he is already in 
a right condition to receive, or he will take the necessary means 
to become so. Nothing is said here either for or against employ- 
ing the help of a minister, as in private confession: but doxyacérw 
éavrov shows that the individual Christian can do it for himself, 
and perhaps implies that this is the normal condition of things.* 
Those who are unskilful in testing themselves may reasonably 
seek help; and confession, whether public or private, is help 
supplied by the Church to those who need it. But when the 
right condition has been reached, by whatever means, then and 
not till then (ovrws) let him come and partake. 

€k Tod dptou . . . €k Tod Torypiov. The prepositions seem to 
imply that there are other communicants (x. 17); but the change 
of construction in ix. 7 renders this doubtful. Evans interprets 
the éx of “‘the mystical effects of the bread eaten.” 

* Chrysostom insists on this; ‘‘He does not order one man to test 


another, but each man himself ; thus making the court a private one and the 
verdict without witnesses.” Unicuigue committitur suimet judictum (Cajetan), 


252 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | XI. 29 


29. It is impossible to reproduce in English the play upon 
words which is manifest in these verses (29-34), in which changes 
are rung upon xpiwa and xpivw with its compounds: Blass, Gr. 
$82. 4. Such things are very common in 2 Cor. (i. 13, ill. 2, 
iv. 8, Vi. 10, x. 6, 12, xii. 4). ‘The exact meaning of this verse is 
uncertain. Either (1) ‘For the (mere) eater and drinker,’ who 
turns the Supper into an ordinary meal; or, (2) ‘For he who 
eats and drinks (unworthily, or without testing himself).’? There 
is not much difference between these two, and in either case ph 
Siaxpivwy must mean ‘éecause he does not rightly judge,’ or 
‘without rightly judging.’ Or else, (3) ‘He who eats and drinks, 
eats and drinks judgment to himself, 7/ he does not rightly judge.’ 
In any case xpiva is a neutral word, ‘judgment’ or ‘sentence,’ 
not ‘condemnation,’ still less ‘damnation.’ ‘The context implies 
that the judgment is adverse and penal (v. 30); but it also 
implies that the punishments are temporal, not eternal. These 
temporal chastisements are sent to save offenders from eternal 
condemnation. For «pia, not xpiovs, comp. Rom. iii. 8, v. 16; 
Gal. v. 10; and see Thayer’s Grimm. 

It seems to be safe to assume that dvaxpivw has the same 
meaning in vv. 29 and 31. In that case ‘discern’ or ‘dis- 
criminate’ (RV. and marg.) can hardly be right, for this meaning 
makes poor sense in v. 31. ‘Judge rightly’ makes good sense 
in both places. Of course one who forms a right judgment will 
discern and discriminate (in this case, will distinguish the Body 
from ordinary food), but ‘distinguish’ is not the primary idea. 
Chrysostom paraphrases, 7) évvowv, ws xpy, TO peyeBos THY TpoKet- 
pevov, ey AoytCopevos. It is not likely that, because the bread 
symbolizes the many grains of Christian souls united in one 
Church, 70 o@pa here means the body of Christians ;* still less 
that it means ‘the substance’ which is veiled in the bread, as 
some Lutherans interpret. 


The addition of dvakiws after rivwy, and of rod Kupiov after 7d cSua in 
a number of texts, are obvious interpolations. Why should §* A B C* and 
other authorities omit in both cases, if the additions were genuine? 

Editors differ as to the accent of xplua. In classical Greek xpiua is right, 
but in this later Greek the earlier witnesses for accents give xplua. Much 
the same difference is found with regard to or¥Aos, which Tisch. accents 
orddos. See Lightfoot on Gal. ii. 9, v. Io. 

On the insoluble problem as to wat it is that the wicked receive in the 
Lord’s Supper, see E. H. Browne and E. C. S. Gibson on article xxix ; 


* Stanley strongly contends for this meaning ; it was ‘‘ the community and 
fellowship one with another which the Corinthian Christians were so slow to 
discern” ; and he appeals to xii. 12, 13, 20, 27; Rom. xii. 4, 5; Eph. ii. 
16, ili. 6, iv. 12, 16; Col. i. 18, ii. 19, iii. 15 (Chréstian Institutions, p- III). 
In any case we may compare the striking saying of Ignatius (Rom. vii., 
Trail, viii.), that ‘the Blood of Jesus Christ is Jove.” 


XI. 29,30] DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 253 


the correspondence between Keble and Pusey at the end of vol. iii. of 7he 
Life of Pusey; and J. B. Mozley, Lectures and other Theological Papers, 
p- 205. ‘‘If he receive unworthily, he verily rejects the Body and Blood 
of Christ” (Khomiakoff, Zssay on the Church, in Birkbeck, Russia and 
the English Church, p. 207). Some problems respecting the Eucharist are 
the result of theories (which may be erroneous) respecting the manner 
of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: if the theory is relinquished, the 
difficulty disappears. It is clear from vv. 28, 29, which have xal and not 
% between é¢8. and ww., that communion in both kinds was usual, and 
there is no mention of special ministers who distributed the bread and the 
wine. But these abuses might suggest the employment of ministers. 

830. 84 todto. He proceeds to prove the truth of xpiua éavtd 
éoOie. Kat mivee from the Corinthians’ own experiences. It is 
because of their irreverence at the Lord’s Supper that many 
among them have been chastised with sickness, and some even 
with death. To interpret this of spiritual weakness and deadness 
is inadequate ; and no ancient commentator thus explains the 
words. Their spiritual deadness produced the irreverence, and 
for this irreverence God chastised them with bodily suffering. 
Had spiritual maladies been meant, we should probably have 
had év rvevpari, or év tats Kapdiars tyov. Perhaps at this time 
there was much sickness in the Church of Corinth, and St Paul 
points out the cause of it. We need not assume that he had 
received a special revelation on the subject. It is possible that 
the excess in drinking may have led in some cases to illness. 
Both doGevets and appwora imply the weakness of ill-health (Mark 
vi. 5, 13; Matt. xiv. 14), and it is not clear which is the stronger 
word of the two: infirmi et imbecilles (Vulg.); but dappworetv 
(2 Chron. xxxii. 24) is perhaps more than do@eveitv. By txavod is 
meant ‘enough to be considerable’: in this sense the word is 
frequent in Luke and Acts, and in 1 and 2 Mac., but is rare else- 
where: in Rom. xv. 23 the reading is somewhat doubtful. See 
Swete on Mark x. 46. 

koipavtat. ‘Are sleeping’ (in death), dormiunt, rather than 
‘are falling asleep,’ obdormiunt: here and elsewhere the Vulg. 
has dormio. The word was welcomed by Christians as harmon- 
izing with the belief in a resurrection, but it was previously used 
by Jews and heathen without any such belief. Test. of xu. 
Patr. Joseph xx. 4, exouunby trvw card, where some texts read 
€x. Urvov aiwviov: Comp. Orws Kapwhaow Kal ttvdcwow strvov 
aidvov, and ixvicovoew trvov aiwviov Kat py e€eyepOdow (Jer. li. 
39, 57)3;* Book of Jubilees xxill. 1; Zum consanguineus Leti 
Sopor (Virg. Aen. vi. 278. See Milligan on 1 Thess. iv. 13), 
Calvin points out that these consequences of profanation must 


* With alwvis here comp. Koysijoaro xdA\xeov tarvov (Hom. //. xi. 241); 
ferreus urget somnus (Virg. Aen. x. 745), perpetuus sopor urget (Hor. Od. 1. 
xxiv. 5). These illnesses and deaths would be all the more remarkable in a 
Church which had a xdowya laudrwy (xii. 9). 


254 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XI. 30-33 


be regarded as admonitions: neque enim frustra nos affligit Deus, 
quia malis nostris non delectatur ; argumentum copiosum et amplum. 
He also seems to regard solitary masses as a repetition of the 
offence in v. 21; ut unus seorsum epulam suam habeat, abolita 
communicatione. 


31, ci Sé€ éautods Sexpivoyev. ‘But if we made a practice 
(imperf.) of rightly judging ourselves’: éavrovs is emphatic, and 
éavrovs duexp. is stronger than the middle. The reference is to 
v. 28. ‘If we habitually tested ourselves, and reached a right 
estimate, we should not receive judgment’ (such as these sick- 
nesses and deaths). For the construction comp. John v. 46, 
Vill. 19, 42, XV. 19, xviil. 36; and for éavrovs with the 1st pers. 
Acts xxiii. 14; 1 John i. 8. In using the rst pers. the Apostle 
softens the admonition by including himself. What follows is 
much less stern than what precedes. He is anxious to close 


gently. 


el dé(N* ABDEFG, Vulg, Aeth. Goth. RV.) is certainly to be pre- 
ferred to el ydp (nN? CK L P, Syrr. Aegyptt. AV.). 


32. Kpivdpevor Sé. ‘But when we do receive judgment (as is 
actually the case by these sicknesses), we are being chastened by the 
Lord, in order that we may not receive judgment of condemnation 
(be judged to death) with the world.’ These temporal sufferings 
are indeed punishments for sin, but their purpose is disciplinary 
and educational (1 Tim. i. 20), to induce us to amend our ways 
and escape the sentence which will be pronounced on rebels at 
the last day. The xéopos here is, not God’s well-ordered 
creature, but His enemy, as commonly in St John. ‘I beseech 
therefore those who read this book, that they be not dis- 
couraged because of the calamities, but account that these 
punishments were not for the destruction, but for the chastening 
of our race’ (2 Mac. vi. 12). For zadevdueba (as implying 
moral training as distinct from mere teaching), see Westcott on 
Heb. xii. 7; Trench, Syz. § 32; Milligan, Gr&. Papyri, p. 94.* 


83. dore, ddehpoi pou. In vv. 31, 32 he has been regarding 
offences generally. He now returns to the disorders in con- 
nexion with the Lord’s Supper in order to close the subject, and 
in so doing he repeats the affectionate address (i. 11) which 
still further -migitates the recent severity. This conclusion 
indicates where the great fault has been: in the common meal 
of Christian love and fellowship there has been no love or fellow- 
ship. Having charged them to secure the necessary internal 

* ““The Apostle did not say koNafbueba, nor Tiuwpotmeba, but radevdueba. 


For his purpose is to admonish, not to condemn; to heal, not to requite ; 
to correct, not to punish” (Chrys. ). 


XI. 33, 34} DISORDERS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 255 


feeling by means of self-examination, he now insists upon the 
necessity for the external expression of it. To the last he harps 
upon ouvépyerbar. These are meetings, Christian gatherings, the 
object of which is to manifest mutual love. Moreover, the 
purpose of the congregational meal is spiritual, not physical ; not 
to satisfy hunger, but to commemorate and to hold communion 
with Christ. Let them cease to come together eis jjccov, eis 
kpiua. As in v. 21, TO aye is a general expression for a 
common meal. 

GAnAous éxdexecGe. ‘Wait for one another,’ zxvicem expectate 
(Vulg.). This is the usual meaning of the verb in the N.T. 
(xvic 215 Heb. x. 13, xi. 10; Acts*xva, 265 Jas: vy: 7)2)' “Fhe 
meaning ‘receive ye one another’ (common in the LXX and in 
class. Grk.) is less suitable: for this he would perhaps have used 
mpocdapBaverGac (Rom. xiv. 1, xv. 7). The waiting would 
prevent the greedy zpoAauBapew (21): and Chrysostom points 
out the delicacy of the expression. It is the rich who are to wait 
for the poor; but neither rich nor poor are mentioned. 


34. The mere satisfying of hunger should be done év oixw 
(xiv. 35), not év éxxAynoia (v. 18). Comp. kar’ oikoy (Acts ii. 46, 
v. 42). The abrupt conclusion is similar to the conclusion of 
the discussion about women wearing veils (v. 16). He is not 
going to argue the matter any further; the difference between 
the Supper and ordinary meals must be clearly marked: that is 
final. 


The 6é after e/,—el 5é rus (N°? D® EK LP, Syrr. AV.) is a manifest 
interpolation (X* A BC D* FG, Latt. RV. omit). The asyndeton makes 
an abrupt conclusion. 


Ta 8€ Aouwd. One may guess for ever, and without result, as 
to what things the Apostle was going to set in order, just as one 
may guess for ever as to what directions our Lord gave to the 
Apostles respecting Church order during the forty days. Here 
‘all the other matters’ possibly refers to matters about which the 
Corinthians had asked, and probably to matters connected with 
the Love-feasts and the Eucharist. The use of d:arafopar (vii. 
17, ix. 14, xvi. 1; Tit. i. 5) suggests that these had reference to 
externals, edragé/a, rather than to the inner meaning of the rite. 
But the evidence is slight, and does not carry us far. 

as Gy €XOw. ‘Whensoever I shall have come,’ or ‘according 
as I come.’ The dv makes both event and time uncertain. 
Comp. as av rope’vwpae eis THY Zraviav (Rom. xv. 24); ds dv 
aridw ra wept eué (Phil. ii. 23). J. H. Moulton, i. p. 167. 
Meanwhile there seems to be no overseer or body of elders to 
act for him. 


256 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XI. 17-34 


ADDITIONAL NOTE ON XI. 17-34. 


This passage throws considerable light upon the manner of 
celebrating the Lord’s Supper in St Paul’s day. On the negative 
side we have important evidence. As J. A. Beet 7x doc. points 
out very incisively, the Apostle says nothing about ‘ consecration’ 
by a ‘priest’; and, had there been anything of the kind, would 
he not have said, ‘ Wait for the consecration,’ rather than ‘ Wait 
for one another’ (v. 33)? Beet points out further (A/anual of 
Theology, p. 388) that private members were able to appropriate 
beforehand the food designed for the communion, which implies 
that they were not in the habit of receiving the bread and wine 
from the church officers. And St Paul does not tell them that 
they must not help themselves to the bread and wine, although 
this would have effectually put a stop tothe -a S in question ; 
which shows that he did not look een eRe EET elements 
as essential to the validity of the rite. From this we infer with 
certainty that, when Christ ordained the Supper, He did not 
direct, and that, when 1 Corinthians was written, the Apostles 
had not directed, that the sacred rite should be administered by 
the church officers and them alone. Nor have we in the N.T. 
any evidence that the Apostles afterwards gave this direction. 
What we ave is evidence that a body of church officers was 
being developed: and it is reasonable to suppose that, when a 
distinction had been made between laity and clergy, the duty of 
celebrating the Lord’s Supper would very soon be reserved fcr 
the clergy. 

On the positive side we may assume from Todro wovetre that 
the Christian Supper was closely modelled, in all essentials, on 
what Christ did at the Paschal Supper. This carries with it— 

(a) The Blessing and Breaking of Bread and the Blessing of 
a Cup, as then by Christ, so later by a presiding person. 

(8) The Meal itself, originally meant, like the Passover, to be 
a genuine meal, for satisfying hunger and thirst. 

But (v. 22) St Paul began a change which tended to make 
the meal connected with the Lord’s Supper a mere ceremony. 
The genuine meal, for satisfying hunger, is to be taken at home, 
and the Lord’s Supper is not to be used for that purpose by all 
communicants as a matter of course, although the poor are to 
have an opportunity of satisfying their appetites. This change 
naturally tended to the goal which was ultimately reached, 
viz., the complete separation of the Eucharist from the Supper, 
which became a mere ‘Agape.’ The contributions of food 
brought by the worshippers survived in later times as the First 
Oblation, the EvAoyia. See Dict. of Chr. Ant. Artt. ‘ Agape,’ 
‘Eulogia,’ ‘ Eucharist’; Kraus, Rea/-Enc. d. christ. Alt. 1. Artt. 


XII. 1-XIV. 40] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 257 


*Eucharistie,’ ‘Eulogien’; Hastings, DB. and DCG. Artt. 
‘Lord’s Supper,’ ‘Communion.’ 


XII. 1-XIV. 40. SPIRITUAL GIFTS, ESPECIALLY 
PROPHESYING AND TONGUES. 


This is the third and longest section of the fourth main 
division of the Epistle; and, as at the beginning of this 
division (xi. 2), there is a possible reference to the letter of the 
Corinthians to the Apostle; but he would no doubt have 
treated of a number of the topics which are handled, even if 
they had not mentioned them. 

In all three of the sections we are reminded that he is 
dealing with a young Church in which some of the faults of their 
former state of life are reappearing. ‘This is specially the case 
with the Corinthian lové of faction. There were rivalries, 
cliques, and splits, hardening sometimes into parties with party- 
leaders. About the veils, there was the rivalry between men and 
women. At the love feasts, there was the rivalry between rich 
and poor. And here we have evidence of rivalries as to the 
possession of spiritual gifts, and especially as to those which 
were most demonstrative, and therefore seemed to confer most 
distinction. 

The difficulty of this section lies in our ignorance of the 
condition of things to which it refers. The phenomena which 
are described, or sometimes only alluded to, were to a large 
extent abnormal and transitory. They were not part of the 
regular development of the Christian Church. Even in 
Chrysostom’s time there was so much ignorance about them as 
to cause perplexity. He remarks that the whole of the passage 
is very obscure, because of our defective information respecting 
facts, which took place then, but take place no longer. Some 
members of the Corinthian Church, in the first glow of early 
enthusiasm, found themselves in possession of exceptional 
spiritual endowments. ‘These appear to have been either wholly 
supernatural endowments or natural gifts raised to an extra- 
ordinarily high power. It seems tobe clear that these endowments, 
although spiritual, did not of themselves make the possessors of 
them morally better. In some instances the reverse was the 
case ; for the gifted person was puffed up and looked down on 
the ungifted. Moreover, the gifts which were most desired and 
valued were not those which were most useful, but those which 
made most show. 

The chapter falls into two clearly marked parts: (1) The 
Variety, Unity, and true Purpose of Spiritual Gifts, 1-11; (2) 


17 


258 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII 1-11 


Illustration from Man’s Body of the truth that, though the Gifts 
may be various, those who possess them are one organic Whole, 
12-31. The first three verses are introductory, to supply a test 
which a Church consisting chiefly of converts from heathenism 
would be likely to require. Converts from Judaism might know 
from their own history and previous experience what manifesta- 
tions of power were divinely inspired, and what not. But 
converts from idolatry would not be able to distinguish: 
incantations and spells were all alike to them. Then follows 
(4-11) the paragraph on the oneness of the origin of all gifts 
that are beneficial. 


A sure test of the origin of any spiritual gift ts, Does it 
promote the glory of Jesus Christ? What dishonours Him 
cannot be from above. The good gifts are very various in 
their manifestations, but they have only one Source—God's 
Holy Spirit. 


1 Now concerning spiritual manifestations, Brethren, I am 
anxious that you should be underno delusions. ? You remember 
that, when you were heathens, you were led away, just as the 
impulse might take you, to the dumb idols that could tell you 
nothing. * Those experiences do not help you now ; and therefore 
I would impress upon you this as a sure test. No one who is 
speaking under the influence of God’s Spirit ever says, Jesus is 
anathema ; and no one can say, Jesus is Lord, except under the 
influence of the Holy Spirit. , 

* Now there are various distributions of gifts; but it is one 
and the same Spirit who bestows them. 5 And there are various 
distributions of ministrations; and it is to one and the same 
Lord that they are rendered. ®And there are various distribu- 
tions of effects ; yet it is the same God who causes every one of 
them in every Christian that manifests them. 7 But to each 
Christian the manifestation of the Spirit is granted with a view 
to some beneficent end. *®For to one man is granted through 
the Spirit the utterance of wisdom ; to another, the utterance of 
knowledge according to the leading of the same Spirit; toa 
third, potent faith by means of the same Spirit ; and to another, 
manifold gifts of healings by means of the one Spirit ; 1° and to 
another, various miraculous effects; to another, inspired utter- 
ance ; to another, powers of discriminating between inspirations ; 
to yet another, different kinds of Tongues; and to another, 


XII. 1, 2] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 259 


the interpretation of Tongues. '™ But every one of these mani- 
festations of power is caused by one and the same Spirit, who 
distributes them to each individual singly, exactly as He wills. 


1. Mept 8€ tay mveupatindy. ‘Now concerning spiritual 
powers’ or ‘gifts.’ The wep, as in vil. 1 and viii. 1, probably 
refers to topics mentioned by them; and the dg, as in xi. 2, 
marks the transition from one topic to another, and probably 
from one topic about which they had asked to another about 
which they had asked. With less probability some make the 8€ 
antithetical, as distinguishing what he deals with at once from 
what he has decided to postpone; ‘ But, while I postpone 7a 
Aoura, I must not delay to instruct you about Ta mvevpatixa.’ 
Some again would make tév zvevpatixdv masculine, as in ii. 15 
and xiv. 37; but it is certainly neuter, as in xiv. 1. What 
follows treats of the spiritual gifts, rather than those who are 
endowed with them; but the difference is not very important. 
Spiritualia dona vocat, guia solius Spiritus Sancti opera sunt, 
industria humana nihil ad hoc conferente (Natalis Alexander) : 
see Denton on the Ep. for roth Sunday after Trinity. 

ob G€hw Spas dyvoetv. As in x. 1; comp. Rom. i. 13, xi. 25; 
2 Cor. 1,8; 1 Thess. iv. 13. The formula marks the introduction 
of an important subject which must not be overlooked, and is 
always softened by the addition of the affectionate ddeAgpot: he 
will not leave his brethren inignorance. Moreover, this addition 
reminds them that there ought to be no jealousies between 
brethren as to the possession of spiritual gifts. 


2. olSatre Ott Gre... dmaydpevo. ‘The sentence is not 
grammatical, and the simplest remedy is to understand 7re with 
amaydpevor, which is not a violent supplement. The main 
sentence in that case is oldate Ore pos Ta eldwda drayopevor 
(jre). ‘Ye know that, when ye were heathen, ye were led away, 
as from time to time ye might be led,* to worship the idols, the 
speechless things.’ They were hurried along, like dumb brutes, 
to pay reverence to the dumb idols,—objects of worship which, 
so far from inspiring others to speak, could not speak themselves. 
They had no revelation to give, and could not have communi- 
cated it, if they had. ‘They have mouths and speak not’ 
(Ps. cxv. 5; Hab. ii. 18; Wisd. xiii. 17-19; Baruch vi. 8), and 
can neither answer questions nor make known their own will : 
coect ad mutos ibatis, muti ad coecos (Beng.). The insertion of ‘as 
at any time ye might be led,’ added to draydpevor, emphasizes 
the idea of senseless, and almost unconscious following. They 


* This is one of the places in which the old z¢erative force of dv seems to 
survive in the N.T. Comp. Acts ii. 45, iv. 35. J. H. Moulton, p. 167. 


260 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII 2, 8 


were led, not by any revelation of Divine will, but by local 
custom, or by the command of priests or rulers.* But dmayo- 
pevor does not mean ‘led astray’: the heathen were not seduced 
from a better religion to idolatry. Here only is dwdyew found in 
the N.T., except in the Synoptics and Acts; and there the 
common meaning is to lead away by /orce, rather than by 
seductive guile, to trial, prison, or punishment (Matt. xxvi. 57, 
xxvii. 2, 31; etc. ; Acts xii. 19, xxiv. 7). The agent who led 
them on to the worship of idols is not mentioned; but we 
are probably to understand the evil one as at the back of custom 
or command, Satan, “the wily wire-puller of moral mischief” 
(Evans). Contrast rvevpate dyeoba (Gal. v. 18; Rom, viii. 14), 
and with dre €0vy Fre comp. Ore jyev vareot (Gal. iv. 3). On the 
verse as a whole Calvin rightly remarks, perturbata est constructio, 
sed tamen clarus est sensus. 


We may safely adopt as dv dyeoGe rather than ws dyjyecbe. Other 
doubts are not So easily settled. 

Some regard ws dv 7yec@e as a resumption of the clause introduced by 
ute: ‘Ye know that, when ye were heathen,—how ye were led to those 
voiceless idols, being carried away.’ This makes the dmayémevor come in 
very awkwardly. Both é7: and ére are found in § ABCDELP, Vulg. 
Arm., but some texts omit é7e and some omit 67. WH. suspect a 
primitive error, and for é7« ére conjecture 67 wé7e. The error might easily 
arise in dictation. This is very attractive; it gets rid of all grammatical 
difficulty and is in accordance with Pauline usage; ‘ Ye know that ovce ye 
were heathen, carried away to those voiceless idols, as on occasions ye 
might be led.’ St Paul often contrasts his readers’ previous unhappy 
paganism (7d7e) with their happy condition as believers (viv): Rom. xi. 30; 
Col. i. 21, vii. 8; Eph. ii. 11-13, v. 8. But whichever reading or con- 
struction we adopt, the import of the verse is clear: it is because they once 
were idolaters that he is so anxious that they should be properly instructed 
about 7a mvevuparixa, 


3. 81d yvwpifw dpiv. ‘On which account I make known to 
you’ (xv. 1; Gal. i.11). Excepting the Pastoral Epistles, 8:6 is 
frequent in the Pauline Epp. Seeing that in their heathen state 
they could know nothing about spiritual gifts, nor how to discern 
whether a person was speaking by the Spirit or not, he must tell 
them by what kind of spiritual power God makes revelations to 
man.{ No utterance inspired by Him can be against Christ. 
Every word for Christ is inspired by Him. 

* **Much of the immorality which St Paul so graphically describes was 
associated with religious worship. So that the Apostle assigns as the cause 
of the universal condition of moral corruption in the world the universal 
prevalence not so much of no religion as of false religion” (Du Bose, 7he 
Gospel according to St Paul, p. 63). On the idea of Christians ceasing to 
belong om Be €0vn, see Harnack, 7he Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 
i. pp. 60, 89. 

ita racehien thinks that he is contrasting Christian inspiration with the 
frenzy of the Dionysiac and other mysteries ; this may be true 27 fart. 


XII. 3] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 261 


év Mvedpatt Geos. The éy may express either sphere or 
instrumentality : comp. Rom. ix. 1, xiv. 17, xv. 16; Luke iii. 16. 
Although it is perhaps more common to have the article where 
direct agency is meant (vi. 11), yet active influence rather than 
surrounding etement seems to be implied here. See J. A. 
Robinson on Eph. v. 18. The difference between Aadeciv and 
Aéyew may be noted, the one of uttering sounds, the other of 
articulately saying something: comp. ch. xiv. passim; Acts ii. 4, 
6, 7, 11. The blasphemous ’Avabeua “Incods would be more 
likely to be uttered by a Jew than a Gentile; factebant gentes, 
sed magis Judaei (Beng.). It is possible that it was uttered 
against Jesus by His bitter enemies even during His life on 
earth. It is not improbable that Saul himself used it in his per- 
secuting days, and strove to make others do so (Acts xxvi. 11). 
When the Gospel was preached in the synagogues the fanatical 
Jews would be likely to use these very words when Jesus was 
proclaimed as the Messiah (Acts xiii. 45, xviii. 6). Unbelievers, 
whether Jews or Gentiles, were admitted to Christian gatherings 
(xiv. 24), and therefore one of these might suddenly exclaim in 
the middle of public worship, “Avd@eya "Incots. To the inexperi- 
enced Corinthians a mad shout of this kind, reminding them of 
the shrieks of frenzied worshippers of Dionysus and the 
Corybantes, might seem to be inspired: see Findlay ad loc. St 
Paul assures them that this anti-Christian utterance is absolutely 
decisive: it cannot come from the Spirit.* For déva6eua comp. 
Xvi, 22; Gal.i. 8, 9; Trench, Syz. § v.; Cremer, p. 547; Suicer, 
268. Itis one of the 103 words which in N.T. are found only 
in Paul and Luke (Hawkins, Hor. Syn. p. 190). It is less likely 
that St Paul is thinking of cases of apostasy. Fifty years later, 
those who denied that they were Christians were required to 
blaspheme Christ: this was the crucial test. Qui negabant esse 
se Christianos aut fuisse, cum praceunte me deos appellarent et 
imagini tuae ture ac vino supplicarent, praeterea male dicerent 
Christo, guorum nihil posse cogt dicuntur qui sunt re vera Chris- 
tiant, dimittendos esse putavi (Pliny to Trajan, Zp. x. 96). 

Kuptos *Inoods. This comprehensive utterance is as wide as 
Christendom: every loyal Christian is inspired. Those who 
have received special gifts, such as those which are mentioned 
below (4-11), must not regard those who have not received them 
as devoid of the Spirit. This is one of the ways in which the 


* Origen says that the Ophites required this utterance from those who 
joined them: éo7« ris alpeots iris od mpoolerar Tov mpogidvra el m dvabenatley 
Tov Inootv. See /7S. x. 37, p. 30. 

Here the RV. is right in making ‘ Jesus is anathema’ and ‘Jesus is Lord’ 
the oratio recta: NABC have dvd@eua 'Inoois, not "Incodv, and Kupws 
"Inoods, not Kupiov I noodv. 


262 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XII. 3,4 


Spirit glorifies Jesus (John xvi. 14), by enabling many to confess 
Him as Lord. Comp. the similar double test, negative and 
positive, given in 1 John iv. 2-4; but while St John has in view 
those who denied the humanity of Christ, St Paul has in view 
those who denied His Divinity. In Gal. iv. 6 we have the 
parallel cry, ‘Abba, Father,’ as a mark of Christian adoption ; 
and in Acts viii. 16, xix. 5 we have the formula, baptized ‘into 
the name of the Zord Jesus.’ * 


4-6. These verses give the keynote of the passage. Having 
given the negative and positive criterion of genuine spiritual 
endowments as manifested in speech, the Apostle goes on to 
point out the essential oneness of these very varied gifts. In 
doing so he shows clearly, and perhaps of set purpose, that 
Trinitarian doctrine is the basis of his thought. We have the 
three Persons in inverse order, the Fount of Deity being reached 
last,—II veda, Kvpios, @eds. We have the same order, and 
similar thought in Eph. iv. 4-6; one body, quickened by one 
Spirit, dependent upon one Lord, and having the origin of its 
being in one God and Father of all. And there, as here, the 
Trinitarian Unity is at once followed by a statement of the 
distribution of grace to each separate individual; évi d& éxdotw 
npaov €00n 7 xapts. Still more clear is the benediction at the 
end of 2 Cor. (xili. 14); see notes in the Camb. Grk. Test. 
Comp. Clem. Rom. Cor. xlvi. 3 ; ‘one God and one Christ and 
one Spirit of grace” ; and lviii. 2 ; “‘as God liveth, and the Lord 
Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit.” See also Sanday in 
Hastings, D&. u. p. 213; Goudge, 1 Corinthians, pp. xxix ff. 
This language of St Paul, in which the Trinitarian point of view 
is not paraded, but comes out quite naturally and incidentally, 
gives confirmation to the authenticity of Matt. xxviii. 19. This 
Epistle was written a dozen years or more before the First 
Gospel ; but St Paul’s language is all the more intelligible if it 
was well known that our Lord had spoken as Matt. reports. 


4. Avatpécers 8€ xaptopdtwy eiotv. Although every one who 
knows the significance of ‘ Jesus is Lord,’ and can heartily affirm 
it, Is Inspired, ‘yet there are distributions of special gifts’— 
divistones gratiarum (Vulg.). Acafpeots occurs nowhere else in 
the N.T., and it may mean either ‘differences,’ ‘distinctions,’ or 
‘distributions,’ ‘apportionings,’ ‘dealings out.’t The use of 


_* Our Lord uses a similar argument (Mark ix. 39; Luke ix. 50). It is 
quite possible that, at baptism, the convert made some short confession of 
faith, such as Kvpuos ‘Incods. He confessed the Name, when he was baptized 
in the Name. 

_t It is frequent in LXX, especially in Chronicles, of the ‘courses of 
priests, Levites, and troops. 


XII. 4, 5] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 263 


duacpodv in v. 11 seems to decide for the latter. In all three 
cases here the word refers to the gifts being distributed among 
different individuals rather than to the distinctions between the 
gifts themselves. Both meanings are true; but it is the dealing 
out of the gifts, rather than the variety of them, that is insisted 
upon here.* Xdpicpa is almost exclusively a N.T. word, and 
(excepting 1 Pet. iv. 10) is peculiar to Paul. It is found as a 
doubtful reading twice in Ecclus.; in vii. 33 xdpus is probably 
right, and in xxxvill. 34 (30) xptopa may be right. The word is 
frequent in 1 Cor. and Rom., and is found once each in 2 Cor. 
ang t and 2. ‘Tim. See especially Rom. xii. 3-8, which was 
perhaps written when the Apostle had this chapter iin his mind. 
From neither passage can we gather that there were definite 
ministers, differing in function, and each endowed with special 
and appropriate xapiopara. ‘The impression conveyed is that 
these gifts were widely diffused, and that perhaps there were not 
many Christians at Corinth who were not endowed with at least 
one of them. See J. A. Robinson, Lucy. Bibl. iv. 4755 f.; Hort, 
The Chr. Eccles, pp. 153f.; W. E. Chadwick, Zhe Pastoral 
Teaching of St Paul, ch. iti.; J. Wilhelm in Zhe Catholic Cyclo- 
paedia, ii. Art. ‘Charismata’; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 
pp. 358f.; Cremer, p. 577; Suicer, 1500. ‘The word is some- 
times used i in a wider sense of any gift of grace, 4.f. continence 
(vii. 7), or faith (Rom. i. Tr). 

76 S€ adtS Mvedpa. The d€ marks the antithesis between the 
one Fount and the many streams. The Spirit which bestows all 
these special gifts is the same as that which enables Gentile or 
Jew to confess Christ; consequently the test given in v, 3 is 
available in each case. See Dale, Zphescans, pp. 133 ff. 


5. Staxonay. Like ydpucpa, the word has both a general 
and a special meaning : (1) any Christian ministration or service 
(here; Rom. xi. 13; Eph. iv. 12), whether of an Apostle or of 
the humblest believer; (2) some special administration, as of 
alms, or attendance to bodily needs (xvi. 15; 2 Cor. viii. 4). 
“Spiritual service of an official kind” is not included in the 
meaning, but may be implied in the context. See Hort, 
Christian Ecclesia, pp. 202 f. 

kal 6 adrds KUpios. Here there is no antithesis (kai, not dé) 
between the many and the one: the two facts are stated as 
parallel. On the one side are the apportionments of ministra- 
tions; on the other is He who ‘came not to be ministered 
to, but to minister’ (Mark x. 45), but who counts all service 
to others as service done to Himself (Matt. xxv. 40). ‘Ye serve 


* Comp. Maharbal’s words to Hannibal; Non omnia nimirum eidem até 
dedere (Livy, xxii. 51). 


264 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XII. 5-7 


the Lord Christ’ (Col. iii. 24): it is He who is glorified by the 
diverse distribution of ministries. 


6. évepynpdtwy. These are the results or effects of the évép- 
yea given by God (Eph. iii. 7; Col. i. 29, 1. 12), the outward 
manifestations of His power. Among these évepy. are certainly 
xapiopara taydrwv. The word occurs again v. 10, but nowhere 
else in Biblical Greek: it is almost co-extensive with xapiopara, 
but it gives prominence to the idea of power rather than that of 
endowment. Cremer, pp. 262, 713; he quotes Polyb. iv. 8. 7, 
ai trav dvOporuv dices exovol te roAvedés, Gote Tov abrov avdpa. 
py povov ev Tois Siaépovow Tov éevepynpdtov : and Diodor. iv. 51, 
tov dt évepynparov itp tiv avOpurivyy piow pavevtuv. 

6 8é adtds Oeds. If this is the right reading, we again have 
a contrast between the oneness of the Operator and the multi- 
plicity of the operations, as before in v. 4. The Operator 
(6 évepydv) is always God: every one of the gifts in every person 
that manifests them (7a wavra év maow) is bestowed and set in 
motion by Him. See J. A. Robinson, Zp. p. 241; Westcott, 


Eph. p. 155. 


6 62 abrds is the reading of SAK LP, Latt. Syrr. Arm., and the 6¢é is 
supported by the 6 a’rés 6€ of DEF G. But xai 6 adds is found in BC, 
some cursives, and Origen. If xal 6 airés may be due to assimilation to 
v. 5, 6 d¢ a’rés may be due to assimilation to v. 4. St Paul would be as 
likely to repeat the xal as to go back to the 6é, 


7. The emphasis is on the first word and on the last. One 
and the same Divine Unity works throughout, as Spirit, Lord, 
and God: ‘but to each one is being given the manifestation of the 
Spirit with a view to profiting.” The purpose of all these various 
gifts, like their origin, is one and the same—the good of the 
congregation ; they are bestowed to be exercised for the benefit 
of all: Eph. iv. 7-16. The AV. is unfortunate; ‘to every man’ 
is wrong and wrongly placed. In 4 davépwors (2 Cor. iv. 2 only) 
To Muevparos, the genitive is probably objective, ‘the operation 
which manifests the Spirit, rather than subjective, ‘the mani- 
festation which the Spirit produces.’ There are many such 
doubtful genitives ; Moul.-Win. p. 232. 

mpos TO cunpepov. ‘With a view to advantage,’ z.e. ‘the profit 
of all.’ We are probably to understand that it is common weal 
that is meant, not the advantage of the gifted individual. These 
charismata are not for self-glorification, nor merely for the 
spiritual benefit of the recipient, but for that of the whole Church. 
Here ovpdépov is certainly right; comp. Acts xx. 20; Heb. xii. 
10: in vii. 35 and x. 33 ovpopor is to be preferred, but in x. 33 
the Revisers have cupdépov, as here. 

The import of vv. 6 and 7 is, that the very various gifts, 


> 


XII. 7, 8] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 265 


bestowed not for merit but of free bounty—gvratiae gratis datae, 
are being distributed to each individual according to his capacity ; 
and he must use the new powers, opportunities, and activities for 
the well-being of the whole. They are talents out of one and the 
same treasury of love, and must be used for the profit of the 
one body. What follows is the explanation of éxdotw diSorax 
(8-11), and then we have an amplification of zpos 7d cvpdépov 
(12 ff.). 


8-11. The details of the continual giving are now stated. It 
is by no means certain that St Paul is consciously classifying the 
nine gifts which he mentions; still less is it certain that the 
érépw in vv. g and 10 marks the beginning of a new class. The 
change to érépw may be made merely to break the intolerable 
monotony of addAw eight times in succession; and we might 
render the first érép ‘to a third,’ and the second ‘to a seventh.’ 
Comp. adAkw... ddAw. . . érépw . . . GAAw in Hom. ZZ. xiii. 
730-2. Nevertheless, if we take each érépw as marking a new 
division, we get an intelligible result. Of the three classes thus 
made, the first is connected, with the intellect, the second with 
faith, and the third with the Tongues. Note that the Tongues 
come last. For Origen’s comment, see /7'S. x. 37, p. 31. 


8. @ pev . . . Adyos godias, GAAw 8€ Adyos yvdicews. In each 
case it is the Adyos which is divinely imparted, the power of 
communicating to others: the od¢va and the yvéous may come 
from above, or from human study or instruction. The Adyos 
godias is discourse which expounds the mysteries of God’s 
counsels and makes known the means of salvation. It is a 
higher gift than Adyos yvéoews, and hence is placed first, and is 
given by the instrumentality (6.4 tod) of the Spirit, whereas the 
latter is given in accordance with («ara 76) the Spirit. Com- 
mentators differ as to the exact differences between oodiéa and 
yvaous ; but o. is the more comprehensive term. By it we know 
the true value of things through seeing what they really are; 
it is spiritual insight and comprehension (Eph. i. 17; 2 Esdras 
xiv. 22, 25). By yv. we have an intelligent grasp of the prin- 
ciples of the Gospel; by o. a comprehensive survey of their 
relations to one another and to other things. Contrast the 
shallow godia Adyov, so valued at Corinth (i. 17). In itself, yv. 
may be the result of instruction guided by reason, and it requires 
no special illumination ; but the use of this knowledge, in accord- 
ance with the Spirit, for the edification of others, is a special 
gift. But our ignorance of the situation makes our distinctions 
between the two words precarious: to the Corinthians, among 
whom these two gifts were of common occurrence, the difference 
between o. and yv. would be clear enough. 


266 FIRST EPISTLE TO TIIE CORINTHIANS [XII 9, 10 


9. étépw ions. ‘To a third, faith.’ This cannot mean the 
first faith of a convert’s self-surrender to the truth, nor the saving 
faith which is permanently possessed by every sincere Christian, 
but the wonder-working faith (xiii. 2; Matt. xvii. 20) which mani- 
fests itself in épya rather than in Adyos ; potent faith ; ardentissima 
et praesentissima apprehensio Dei in ipsius potissimum voluntaie 
(Beng.); miotw ob rv tov doypdrov, GAAG Ti TOV oypEtwv 
(Chrys.); the faith which produces, not only miracles, but 
martyrs. We are perhaps to understand the next four gifts, or 
at any rate the next two, as grouped under wioms. If wiores is 
thus regarded as generic, and as including some of the gifts 
which follow, then the six gifts which follow wiotts, like the two 
which precede it, fall into pairs: Adyos o. and Adyos yv., xapic- 
para lapdrwv and evepyipara duvdépewv, mpopyreca and diaxpices 
mvevpatwv, yevy yAwoowv and épunveta yAwooov. 

Xapiocpata iaudtwy. ‘Gifts of healings,’ ‘gifts which result in 
healings’: faa in this chap. only, in the N.T., and always in 
this phrase (vv 28, 30), but frequent in the LXX. Cf. Acts 
iv. 30. The plur. seems to imply that different persons each had 
a disease or group of diseases that they could cure: that any one 
could cure wécav vogov kai macay padaxiav (Theophyl.) is not 
stated. ‘The means may have been supernatural, or an excep- 
tionally successful use of natural powers, such as ‘suggestion’: 
see Jas. v. 14.* 

évepyjpara Suvdpewv. This may be added to cover wonderful 
works which are not healings, such as the exorcizing of demons ; 
and such chastisements as were inflicted on Elymas the sorcerer, 
or on Hymenaeus and Philetus may be included. Cf. Gal. iii. 5 ; 
Heb. il. 4. 


10. mpopyteia. Not necessarily predicting the future, but 
preaching the word with power (xiv. 3, 24, 30): comp. Didache 
xi. This gift implies special insight into revealed truths and a 
great faculty for making them and their consequences known to 
others. It was about the two pairs of gifts mentioned in this 
verse that the Corinthians were specially excited. See Zucy. Bibi. 
Ill. 3886, Iv. 4760. 


* Harnack holds that St Luke was ‘fa physician endowed with peculiar 
‘spiritual’ gifts of healing, and this fact profoundly affects his conception of 
Christianity” (Zhe Acts of the Apostles, p. 133). Again, ‘‘ whose own we- 
account shows him to have been a physician endowed with miraculous gifts of 
healing” (p. 143; comp. p. 146). 

It is remarkable that although there are allusions to signs and wonders in 
the Apostolic age (2 Cor. xii. 12; Gal. iii. 5; Rom. xv. 9; Heb. ii. 4), there 
is no allusion to miracles wrought by Christ. It cannot be said that in the 
age in which the Gospels were being framed there was a tendency to glorify 
Christ by attributing miracles to Him. See L. Ragg, Zhe Book of Books, 
p. 221, 


nl et 


XII. 10] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 267 


Siaxpicers mveundtwv. ‘The gift of discerning in various cases 
(hence the plur.) whether extraordinary spiritual manifestations 
were from above or not’; they might be purely natural, though 
strange, or they might be diabolical. An intuitive discernment 
is implied, without the application of tests. Perhaps the expres- 
sion chiefly refers to the prophetic gift, which might easily be 
claimed by vainglorious persons or by those who made a trade 
of religion. The Didache (xi. 8) says that “not every one that 
speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but only if he has the ways of 
the Lord. By their ways therefore the false prophet and the true 
shall be known.” The whole chapter should be read in this 
connexion: but the Dzdache gives certain external tests, about 
which St Paul says nothing either here or 1 Thess. v. rg—21. 
He implies that the discrimination between true and false mani- 
festations of power is a purely spiritual act (ii. 15). Ddllinger 
(First Age of the Chruch, p. 312) remarks; “ How St Paul 
distinguished the gift of wisdom, which he claimed for himself 
also, from the gift of knowledge, must remain doubtful. The 
special gift of faith which he mentions can only have consisted 
in the energetic power and heroic confidence of unlimited trust 
in God. The gift of discerning spirits enabled its possessor to 
discriminate true prophets from false, and judge whether what 
was announced came from God or was an illusion. Such a gift 
was indispensable to the Church at a time when false prophets 
abounded, forced their way into congregations, and increased 
every year in numbers and audacity. ‘There were false teachers, 
as St John intimates (1 John iv. 1f.), who preached their own 
doctrine as a revelation imparted to them from above.” 

yévn yAwooay. St Paul places last the gifts on which the 
Corinthians specially prided themselves, and which they were 
most eager to possess, because they made most display. Their 
enthusiasm for the gift of Tongues was exaggerated. The 
undisciplined spirit which had turned even the name of Christ 
into a party-cry (i. 12), and the Lord’s Supper into a drunken 
revel, turned spiritual gifts into food for selfish vanity, instead 
of means for the good of all. And here again they would not 
‘wait for one another,’ but each was eager to take his turn 
first, and numbers were speaking all at once (xiv. 27). The yévy 
indicates that the manifestations of this gift varied much; comp. 
yévn pwvav (xiv. 10): but it seems to be clear that in all cases 
persons who possessed this gift spoke in ecstasy a language 
which was intelligible to themselves, but not to their hearers, 
unless some one was present who had the gift of interpretation. 
The soul was undergoing experiences which ordinary language 
could not express, but the Spirit which caused the experiences 
supplied also a language in which to express them. This 


268 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS { XII. 10, 11 


ecstatic language was a blissful outlet of blissful emotions, but 
was of no service to any one but the speaker and those who 
had the gift of interpretation. The gift of interpreting these 
ecstatic utterances might be possessed by the person who 
uttered them (xiv. 5, 13); but this seems to have been excep- 
tional: comp. Acts x. 46, xix. 6; [Mark] xvi. 17. From 
xiv. 27, 28 it seems to be clear that this ecstatic utterance was 
not uncontrollable: it was very different from the frenzy of 
some heathen rites, in which the worshipper parted with both 
reason and power of will. And whatever may be the relation 
of this gift to the Tongues at Pentecost, the two are alike in 
being exceptional and transitory (see below on xiv.). 


The conjunctions in these two verses (9, 10) are somewhat uncertain. 
In v. 9 there should probably be no 6é after érépy: &* B D* E FG, Latt. 
Arm, omit. Inv. 10 there should perhaps be no 6é until the last clause, 
Gd\\w 6¢ épu. yA. But there is considerable authority for a 6é after the 
first and the second 4A»: yet BD EF G, Latt. omit. 

In vw. 9, év Te évl (AB, cursives, Latt.) is to be preferred to év Te 
atr@, which comes from the previous clause. The temptation to alter 
évl to air@ would be great; and v. 11 confirms the évl. In v. 10 dtaxploets 
(A B K L) is to be preferred to didxpiots (§ CD* FGP). The plur. would 
be changed to the sing. to harmonize with rpogyrela and épunvia. ‘Epynvla 
occurs again xiv. 26, and nowhere else in N.T. 


1l. mévta 8€ tara. The zdvra is very emphatic, and the 
dé marks the contrast of transition from the manifold gifts and 
powers to the one Source of them all. This Source is the Spirit 
of God; so that there is no contradiction between z. 6 and z. Io. 
What God works, the Spirit works. Nor is there any contra- 
diction between v. 10 and v. 31. Our earnest desire for the 
best gifts is one of the things which fits us to receive them, 
and each man receives in proportion to this desire, a desire 
which may be cultivated. The Spirit knows the capacity of 
each ; ili. 8, vil. 7, xv. 23. 

TS €v kai Td adTd Mvedpa. This is a combination of 7 ai 
Iv. with 7o airo Ilv. in v. 9, and is so far a confirmation of 
the reading, 7G év’. This one and the same Spirit has already 
been defined as ‘God’s Spirit’ (v. 3), who is here said to do 
what God does (vz. 6), But here there is something added; 
the Spirit ‘distinguishes and distributes severally to each, exactly 
as He willeth.” Throughout the verse, but especially in the 
last words (xafis PovAerar), the personality of the Spirit is 
implied.* It is in the will that personality chiefly consists. 


_. ” St Paul commonly uses évepyeiv with a personal subject (v. 6; Gal. ii. 8, 
lil. §; Eph. i. 11, 20, ii. 2, as here; Phil. ii. 13), but évepyetoOac with an 
impersonal subject (Rom. vii. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, iv. 12; Gal. v. 6; Eph. iii. 20; 
Col, i, 29; 1 Thess, ii, 13; 2 Thess. ii. 7). See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, 
p. 246. See also Basil, De Spir. xvi. 37, xxvi. 61, and Ep, xxxviii. 4. 


XII. 12-31] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 269 


The Apostle here teaches the Corinthians that they ought not 
to plume themselves upon the possession of one or more of 
these gifts. They may be evidence of capacity, but they are 
no proof of merit. It is the will of the Spirit that decides, a 
will which discriminates, but which cannot be compelled by 
anything which man can do: singults dat singula, vel aliqua, 
varia mensura (Beng.). The Church consists of many persons 
very variously endowed, and the gifts bestowed upon individuals 
benefit the whole. Acaipéw in NT. is found only here and Luke 
Ev. 121 


The addition of (dig (sc. 65¢) emphasizes the fact that the Spirit deals 
with men, not e” masse, but one by one, ‘to each according to his several 
ability’ (Matt. xxv. 15 ; Rom. xii. 6; Eph. iv. 11). In N.T. we commonly 
have xar’ lécay in this sense: here only /6lg, and 2 Mac. iv. 34 only in 
LXX. But /élg is not rare in class. Grk. 


12-31. We pass on to an illustration (taken from the human 
body) of the truth that, though the gifts of God’s Spirit may 
be many and various, yet those who are endowed with them 
constitute one organic whole. The illustration is a common 
one, and is used several times by the Apostle: Rom. xii. 4, 5 ; 
Eph: ‘iy. 16, v. 30; Col. ii. 19. See J. A. Robinson on 
Eph. iv. 16. The difference between the famous parable of 
Menenius Agrippa (Livy ii. 32) and this simile of St Paul is 
that the Apostle does not say anything about a centre of 
nourishment: it is not the feeding of the body, but its unity, 
and the dependence of the members on one another, that is 
the lesson to be instilled.* In the brute creation, as Buckland 
taught his Oxford pupils, and among brutalized men, it is the 
stomach that rules the world. The ultimate aim of the violence 
and cunning of each animal is to feed itself, and often at the 
cost of the lives of other animals: this determines its activities. 
The ultimate aim of the Christian is the well-being of the whole 
body, of which the controlling power is Christ, who is at once 
the Head and the Body, for every Christian is a member of 
Him (vi. 15; Eph. v. 30), and represents Him (Matt. xxv. 
40, 45). Hence, infer Christianos longe alia est ratio (Calvin). 
The Church is neither a dead mass of similar particles, like 
a heap of sand, nor a living swarm of antagonistic individuals, 
like a cage of wild beasts: it has the unity of a living organism, 
in which no two parts are exactly alike, but all discharge different 


* The Emperor Marcus Aurelius frequently insists on this; Teyovamev 
yap mpds cuvepylav, ws mddes, ws xelpes, ws Brépapa, ws ol orotxor Tay dvw Kal 
TOY KdTw dddvTwv" 7b otv dvturpdooew adjArOLS, Tapa diow (ii. 1). Tad AoyiKa 
{Ga addAjrwy evexev vyévyove (iv. 3). Oldv éore ev jnywpévors Ta pédn Tov 
owparos, ToUTov éxer Tov Adyow év GiegTHor Ta Aoyixa, mpds wlay Twa ouvepylay 
Kareckevacpéva. (vii. 13). 


Le 


\ 


270 ~=FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XII. 12-31 


functions for the good of the whole. All men are not equal, 


-and no individual can be independent of the rest: everywhere 


there is subordination and dependence. Some have special 
gifts, some have none; some have several gifts, some only 
one; some have higher gifts, some have lower: but every 
individual has some function to discharge, and all must work 
together for the common good. This is the all-important point 
—unity in loving service. The Church is an organic body, an 
organized society, of which all the parts are moved by a spirit 
of common interest and mutual affection. Weinel, St Paz/, 
pp. 130-133. 

In considering these various gifts, remember that there 
is in the Christian body, just as there ts in the frame of 
the living man, a divinely ordained diversity of members, 
combined with a oneness in mutual help and in devotion to 
the whole: so that no member can be despised as useless, 
either by himself or by other members; for each has his 
proper function, and all are alike necessary. This unity 
involves mutual dcpendence, and therefore it excludes dis- 
content and jealousy on the one hand, arrogance and contempt 
on the other. 


12 Just as the human body is one whole and has many 
organs, while all the organs, although many, form only one 
body, so is it with the Christ, in whom all Christians are one. 
8 For it was by means of one Spirit, and in order to form one 
body, that we all of us were baptized—Jews and Greeks, slaves 
and freemen, without distinction,—and were all made to drink 
deeply of that one Spirit. For, I repeat, the human body 
consists, not of one organ, but of many. 1 Suppose the foot 
were to grumble and say, ‘As I am not as high up as the hand, 
I do not count as part of the body,’ not for all it can say does 
it cease to belong to the body. 16 And suppose the ear were 
to grumble and say, ‘As I am not as well placed as the eye, 
I do not count as part of the body,’ not for all it can say does 
it cease to belong to the body. 1” If the whole body were one 
monstrous eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole 
were hearing, where would the smelling be? 38 But, as a 
matter of fact, God gave every one of the organs its proper 
place.in the body, exactly as He willed. 1 Now, if all made 
only one organ, where would the body be? But, as it is, 


XII. 12] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 271 


although there be many organs, there is only one body. 2! And 
the eye has no right to look down on the hand and say, ‘Thou 
art of no use to me’; nor the head to look down on the feet 
and say, ‘Ye are of no use to me.’ 22QOn the contrary, it is 
much truer to say that those organs of the body which seem 
to be somewhat feeble are really as indispensable as any, 23 and 
the parts of the body which we regard as less honourable are 
just those which we clothe with more especial care, and in 
this way our uncomely parts have a special comeliness ; 
*4 whereas our comely parts have all that they need, without 
special attention. Why, yes; God framed the body on prin- 
ciples of compensation, by giving additional dignity to whatever 
part showed any deficiency, so as to prevent anything like 
disunion in the body, and to secure in all organs alike the 
same anxious care for one another’s welfare. 26 And, accord- 
ingly, if one of them is in pain, all the rest are in pain with it; 
and honour done to one is a joy to all. 27 Now you are a body 
—the Body of Christ, and individually you are His members. 
28 And God gave each his proper place within the Church,— 
Apostles first, inspired preachers next, teachers third; besides 
these, He gave miraculous powers and gifts of healing, powers 
of succouring, powers of governing, ecstatic utterance. 2° Surely 
you do not all of you expect to be Apostles, or inspired preachers, 
or teachers: surely you do not all of you expect to have all 
these wonderful gifts, and even more than these! 3! What 
you ought to do is persistently to long for yet greater gifts. 
And accordingly I go on to show you a still more excellent 
way by which you may attain to them. 


12. mavta 8€ ta péAn. ‘While a// the members of the body, 
though they be many, are one body, so also is the Christ,’ in 
whose Nature they share, in whom they all form one body 
(v. 27), and whom they all serve (v. 5). From one point of 
view Christ is the Head, but that is not the thought here. 
Here He is the whole Body, as being that which unites the 
members and makes them an organic whole. We might have 
had ovrws xai 4 ékxAnota, for Christ or the Church is only one 
Body with many members. ‘The superfluous tod odparos after 
7a péeAn emphasizes the idea of unity; and some texts make 
this still more emphatic by interpolating rod évés after rod 
gwpatos. The human body is a unique illustration of unity 
in diversity. Comp. Justin M. Z7xy. 42. In Eph. and Col. 


272 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XII. 12,13 


7> odpa has become a common designation of the Church. 
The congregation, having to serve one and the same Lord, 
must be united. 


13. xal yap év évi Mvedpar. The ‘one body’ suggests the 
‘one Spirit,’ for it is in a body that spirit has a field for its 
operations. ‘For in one Spirit also we a// were baptized so 
as to form ome body.’ An additional reason (kat ydp, v. 7, 
xi. 9) for the oneness of the many. The Spirit is the element 
in (év) which the baptism takes place, and the one body is 
the end to (eis) which the act is directed: ut simus unum 
corpus uno Spirttu animatum (Beng.); ért tovtw adore eis ev 
oGpa teXciv (Theod.). St Paul insists here on the social 
aspect of Baptism, as in x. 17 on the social aspect of the 
Eucharist. 

cite “louSaior etre “EAAnves, etre SodAor eite eXeVMepor. The 
insertion of this parenthetical explanation shows in the clearest 
way how diverse were to be the members and how close the 
oneness of the body. The racial difference between Jew and 
Greek was a fundamental distinction made by nature; the 
social difference between slave and freeman was a fundamental 
distinction made by custom and law: and yet both differences 
were to be done away, when those who were thus separated 
became members of Christ. In Gal. ili, 28 this momentous 
truth is stated still more broadly, and with more detail in 
Col. ili, rr. In each case the wording is probably determined 
by the thought of those to whom the Apostle is writing. See 
Lightfoot on Col. iii. 11, and cf. vii. 22; Rom. x. 12; Eph. ii. 14, 
with J. A. Robinson’s note. 

mavres €v trveGua éroticOnpev. ‘Were a// watered, saturated, 
imbued, with ome Spirit.’ The advres and the & are placed 
together in emphatic antithesis. ‘The Christ ‘is the év oda, and 
this suggests év veda, for in man oda and zvedya are correla- 
tives. Comp. ’AroAAds éxdricer. 

The verse is taken in three different ways. (1) The whole 
refers to Baptism under two different figures,—being immersed 
in the Spirit, and being made to drink the Spirit as a new elixir 
of life. But, as zorifew is used of irrigating lands, there is 
perhaps not much change of metaphor. (2) The first part refers 
to Baptism, the second to the outpouring of spiritual gifts after 
Baptism. (3) The first refers to Baptism, the second to the 
Eucharist (Aug. Luth. Calv.). This is certainly wrong; the 
aorists refer to some definite occasion, and ‘ drinking the Spirit’ 
is not used of the Eucharist. Both parts refer to Baptism. 
eee the thought in Gal. iii. 26 f., and see /7'S., Jan. 1906, 
p- 198. 


XII. 13-17] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 273 


Before év mv. émor., K L, Vulg. AV. insert els, to agree with the first 
clause: S BC D* FP, Syrr. Aeth. Arm. RV. omit. For év wv. éror., A 
has év c@ud éouev. For éroric@nuev, L and some cursives have épwrla@n- 
ev, a verb which in ecclesiastical Greek is often used of baptism. 

In the active rorifw has two accusatives, yaXa buds érdrioa, and therefore 
retains one acc. in the passive : comp. 2 Thess. ii. 15 , Luke xii. 47, xvi. 19. 


14. kat yap 15 o. Additional confirmation ; ‘For the body 
also is net one member, but many.’ * 


15. ‘If the foot should say, Because I am not hand, I am 
not of the body, it is not on account of this (discontented 
grumbling) not of the body.’ The zapa todro (‘all along of 
this,’ 4 Mac. x. 19) refers to the pettish argument of the foot, 
rather than to the fact of its not being a hand. In each case it 
is the inferior limb which grumbles, the hand being of more value 
than the foot, and the eye than the ear. And Chrysostom 
remarks that the foot contrasts itself with the hand rather than 
with the ear, because we do not envy those who are very much 
higher than ourselves so much as those who have got a little 
above us; od tots oddpa tepexovow, GAAG Tots dALyov dvaBe- 
Byxoot. For eiwi éx, ‘belong to,’ and so ‘dependent on,’ see 
John iv. 22; and for the double negative, 2 Thess. iii. 9. 
Bengel compares Theoph. Ant. (ad Autol. 3); od rapa TO pi 
Brérev tois tupAods Hn Kal ovK Eat. TO Pas Tod HAlov daivov : 
and Origen (con. Cels. vil. 63); ov dia totro ov poryevouow. 
Some would take 0d rapa rovro in vv. 15, 16 interrogatively, as 
in the AV. But this would require py. 


17. ei Sdov 75 cSpa. ‘If the whole body (Luke xi. 34) were 
eye (Num. x. 31), where were the hearing?’ Each member has 
a function which it alone can discharge, and no organ ought to 
think little of its own function, or covet that of another organ. 
In class. Grk. ooppyots is common, but it occurs nowhere else in 
the Bible. 


_ *M. Aurelius, as we have seen, says that we are made to co-operate with 
one another, as feet, and hands, and eyelids, and upper and lower jaws. To 
act in opposition to one another is unnatural (ii. 1). Socrates points out 
how monstrous it would be if hands and feet, which God made to work in 
harmony, were to thwart and impede one another (Xen. Mem. I. iii. 18). 

+ Wetstein quotes Quintilian, viii. 5 ; egue oculos esse toto corpore velim, 
ne caetera membra suum offictum perdant. Cic. De Off. i. 35; Principio 
corporis nostri magnam natura ipsa videtur habutsse rationem, quae formam 
nostram, religquamque figuram, in qua esset species honesta, eam posutt in 
promptu ; quae partes autem corporis ad naturae necessitatem datae adspectum 
essent deformen habtturae atque turpem, eas contexit atque abdidit. De Of. 
iii. 5; St unumguodgue membrum sensum hunc haberet, ut posse putaret se 
valere, st proximi membri valetudinem ad se traduxisset, debilitari et interire 
totum corpus necesse est. 

Primasius turns v. 17 thus; Sz oti docentes, ubt auditores? St toti 
audtitores, quis sciret discernere bonum vel malum? 


18 


274 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII 18-21 


18. viv Se 6 Geds Eero. ‘ But, as it is, God placed the members, 
each one of them, in the body, even as He willed.’ As we see 
from manifest facts, God made unity, but not uniformity; He 
did not level all down to monotonous similarity. The aorists 
refer to the act of creation, and there is no need to turn either 
into a perfect (‘hath set,’ AV., RV.). From the very first it was 
ordered so, as part of a f/an; therefore ‘placed’ rather than 
‘set.’ Every member cannot have the same function, and 
therefore there must be higher and lower gifts. But pride and 
discontent are quite out of place, for they are not only the out- 
come of selfishness, but also rebellion against God’s will. This has 
two points; it was not our fellow-men who placed us in an 
inferior position, but God; and He did it, not to please us or 
our fellows, but in accordance with His will, which must be 
right. Who is so disloyal as to gainsay what God willed to 
arrange? Rom. ix. 20. Compare xafas BovAerar (v. 11), but 
the change of verb and of tense should be noted: it is not mere 
repetition. Deissmann (4id/e Studies, p. 252) quotes as 6 Meds 
nOerev from a private letter of about 200 A.D. 


19. ‘Now, if they all (ra wdvra) were one member, where 
were the body?’ This is the second absurdity: the first was 
‘where were the other members?’ The very idea of body implies 
many members, and if all the members tried to have the honour 
of the highest member, the body would be lost. Quanta ergo 
insanta erit, st membrum unum, potius quam alteri cedat, in suum 
et corporis interitum consptret (Calv.). See Pope, Essay on Man, 
i. 259 f., “ What if the foot,” etc. 


20. ‘But, as it is (But now you see), there are many 
members, yet one body.’ Perhaps there was already a proverb— 
moAAa peAn, &v copa. St Paul reiterates this truth, for on it 
everything which he desires to inculcate turns. From the oneness 
of the whole the mutual dependence of the parts follows of neces- 
sity. See M. Aurelius, ii. 3; in the universe, part and whole must 
co-operate. 


viv 6€ is specially frequent in 1 Cor. (v. I1, vii. 14, xii. 20, xiv. 6); but 
both here and elsewhere authorities are divided between viv and vuvi: in 
xiii, 13 and xv. 20 vuvl is probably right. In wv. 19, BF G omit the ra 
before mévra, and in v. 20 the yév after médda is omitted by B D*, Arm. 
Goth. If we retain wév, ‘yet one body’ or ‘but one body’ may be 
strengthened to ‘ yet but one body’ (AV.), zum vero corpus (Beza). 


21. Hitherto he has been regarding the inferior organs, who 
grumbled because they were not superior. Now he takes the 
superior, who looked down on the inferior. All, of course, with 
reference to evils at Corinth. ‘But the eye cannot say to the 


XII. 21-22] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 275 


hand’—cannot, without stultifying itself: it is manifestly untrue. 
What would become of the desire of the eyes if there were no 
hand to grasp it? There is no such thing as independence 
either in an organism or in society. All parts are not equal, and 
no one part can isolate itself. From the first there is dependence 
and subordination. 


The article before 6¢0-Auds is certainly genuine (x A BC 
and the dé before 6 é@@aduds is probably genuine (% B D 
Arm. omits both. 


EFGLP), 
Kes) Latte) 


D 
BE 

22. ‘Nay, on the contrary (4A), much rather those members 
of the body which seem to be naturally (taapyev) somewhat 
feeble, are necessary.’ The humbler parts not only are indis- 
pensable, but are as indispensable as the rest. So also in society. 
It is the humblest workers, the day-labourers in each trade, that 
are not only as necessary as the higher ones, but are more 
necessary. We can spare this artizan better than this poet ; 
but we can spare all the poets better than all the artizans. 
With this use of the comparative to soften the meaning, comp. 
2 Tim. i. 8; Acts xvii. 22. St Paul does not specify the ‘some- 
what feeble’ members, and we need not do so. 


23. kai & Soxodpey dripdtepa . . . mepitidepev. ‘And the 
parts of the body which we deem to be less honourable, these we 
clothe with more abundant honour.’ Elsewhere in the N.T. 
mepitiOnpe occurs only in the Gospels and there only in the 
literal sense, and generally of clothing (Matt. xxvii. 28), or the 
crown of thorns (Mark xv. 17), or a fence (Matt. xxi. 33 ; Mark 
xli. 1), etc.; but in the LXX we have this same metaphor ; xat 
ovTws Taga ai yuvaixes Tepijcovoew Tiny Tos avdpacw éavTav 
(Esth. i. 20): tupiy éaut@ repitibeis (Prov. xii. 9). 

The division of the verses is unfortunate, and the punctuation 
of the AV. is wrong, while that of the RV. might be improved. 
Put a comma at the end of v. 23, and a full stop at the end of 
the first clause of v. 24. ‘And so our uncomely parts have a 
comeliness more exceeding, whereas our comely parts have no 
need.’ This is the result of giving more abundant honour to the 
less honourable ; acting on that principle, we give most honour 
to the /east honourable. The ‘more exceeding comeliness’ 
refers to the abundance of clothing, which, even when other 
parts are unclothed, 7a doy7jpova receive. For these the Vulg. 
has inhonesta, Beza tndecora, Calv. minus honesta. There are 
three classes ; ra evoyypova, which have no need of clothing or 
adornment, and are commonly exposed to view; ra driporepa, 
which are usually clothed and often adorned; and 7a acyyjpova, 
which are always carefully clothed, ut membra quae turpiter 


276 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS {XII. 23-25 


paterent, lateant honeste (Calv.). The least honourable are not 
only not despised, they are treated with exceptional care.* 
There is no doubt that here, as elsewhere, eda xnpoovvy refers to 
external grace, elegance, or decorum, It does not refer to 
dignity of function. It is true that fatherhood has high responsi- 
bility, and that the womb and the breast are sacred, but evaxypo- 
avvn is not the word to express that. Throughout the passage the 
Apostle is thinking of the members of the Church, and therefore 
more or less personifies the organs of the body. We might 
render ov xpe‘av éxee ‘ fee/s no need,’ no need of anything additional, 
nullius egent (Vulg.), which is better than the more definite 77s 
decore non est opus (Beza). We do not adorn the eye, or protect 
the face as we protect the feet. "Aoyypwv occurs several times 
in LXX, but nowhere else in N.T.; evoxnpoovvn in 4 Mac. vi. 2, 
but nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. See Abbott, Son of Man, 


p. 178. 


24. adhd 6 Ocds auvexépacey 73 cpa. The nominative is 
emphatic. ‘But the fact is, it was God who compounded 
(blended) the body together, by giving to that which feeleth lack 
more abundant honour.’ The two aorists are contemporaneous, 
dovs with ovvexépacer: in giving, or by giving, He tempered; and 
in tempering, or by tempering, He gave. In the LXX and N.T. 
ovykepavvivac is rare (Dan. ii. 43; 2 Mac. xv. 39; Heb. iv. 2), 
but it is common in class. Grk. Comp. the speech of Alcibiades 
(Thuc. vi. xviil. 6); vopicate vedryTa peév Kal yjpas advev GA\AnAwY 
pndev SvvacGar, Spod dé 76 Te hadtdov Kai TO pécov Kal TO mavu 
axpiBes av Evyxpabev partor dv icyvew: also ovyKpacis tis éorw ev 
macw (Clem. Rom. Cor. 37). In v. 23 the Apostle shows how 
men, led by a natural instinct, equalize the dignity of their 
members. Here he shows that it is in reality God who blends 
and balances the whole by endowing men with this instinctive 
sense of propriety. What is in accordance with the common 
feelings of mankind is evidence of what is right (xi. 14). 


We should read r@ borepounévy (XN ABC) rather than 7@ borepodvrs 
(DEFGKL). The former expresses the member’s sevse of inferiority. 


25. iva ph Wy oxtopa ev tr. o. ‘That there should be no 
disunion in the body, but that (on the contrary) the members 
should have the same care one for another’: 18 adré is emphatic, 
and pepiprGow is plural because the argument requires that the 
members be thought of as many and separate: 1 Tim. v. 25; 
Rey. v. 14; Luke xxiv. 11. The verb implies anxious care, 
thoughtful trouble. 


* Atto of Vercelli illustrates this principle by the honour which is paid to 
those who, out of humility, go bare-footed and wear shabby clothing. 


XII. 26, 27] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 277 

26. «cai. ‘And so (asa consequence of the perfect blending), 
whether one member suffereth, all the members rejoice with it.’ 
Not only are the members united to one another and careful for 
one another, but what is felt by one is felt by all. See St Paul’s 
own sympathy, 2 Cor. xi. 28, 29. Plato (#epud. v. 462) points 
out that when one’s finger is hurt, one does not say, “‘ My finger 
is in pain,” but “Zhave a pain in my finger”; and Chrysostom 
(ad /oc.) graphically describes how the various organs are affected 
when a thorn runs into the foot, and also when the head is 
crowned. ‘Is glorified’ may mean either by adornment, or 
by healthy action, or by special cultivation. In ovyxaipe the 
personification of the organs is complete: congaudent (Vulg.), 
congratulantur (Beza). But Beza, by substituting s¢u/ dolent for 
compatiuntur (Vulg.), makes cvprdoxe imply as much personifica- 
tion as ovyyaipe. ‘The Christian principle is the law of sympathy. 
The interests of all individuals, of all classes, and of all nations 
are really identical, although we are seldom able to take a 
view sufficiently extended to see that this is so: but we must 
try to believe it. The benefit of one is the benefit of every 
one; and a wrong done to one is a wrong done to every 
one. Salva esse societas, nist amore et custodia partium, non 
potest (Seneca).* The verb in N.T. is found only in Paul 
and Luke. 


God, in the nature of its being, founds 
Its proper bliss, and sets its proper bounds : 
But as He framed a whole the whole to bless, 
On mutual wants built mutual happiness. 
Thus God and nature linked the general frame, 
And bade self-love and social be the same. 
Pope, Zssay on Man, ili. 109, 217. 


27. pets S€é éote capa Xpiotod. ‘Now ye are Body of Christ’: 
no article. ‘Body of Christ’ is the quality of the whole which 
each of them individually helps to constitute. Comp. 6 @eds dus 
éore (1 Johni. 5), 6 @eds dydry éorv (1 John iv. 8), rvedpa 6 
@eds (John iv. 24), @eds Hv 6 Adyos (John i. 1); x Cor. ili. g, 16. 
It does not mean, ‘Ye are ¢ke Body of Christ,’ although that 
translation is admissible, and indicates the truth that each 
Christian community is the Universal Church in miniature ; nor, 
‘Ye are Christ’s Body,’ which makes ‘ Christ’s’ emphatic, whereas 
the emphasis is on cdya as the antithesis of péAy. Least of all 


* “©One of the most remarkable sides of the history of Rome is the growth 
of ideas which found their realization and completion in the Christian Empire. 
Universal citizenship, universal equality, universal religion, a universal 
Church, all were ideas which the Empire was slowly working out, but which 
it could not realize till it merged itself in Christianity” (Ramsay, 7he Church 
in the Roman Empire, p. 192). 


278 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XII. 27, 28 


does it mean, ‘Ye are a Body of Christ,’ as if St Paul was insisting 
that the Corinthians were only a Church and not ‘Ae Church, a 
meaning which is quite remote from the passage. Nowhere in 
the Pauline Epistles is there the idea that the one Ecclesia is 
made of many Ecclesiae. ‘The members which make up the 
One Ecclesia are not communities but individual men. The 
One Ecclesia includes all members of partial Ecclesiae ; but its 
relations to them all are direct, not mediate. . . . There is no 
indication that St Paul regarded the conditions of membership 
in the universal Ecclesia as differing from the conditions of 
membership in the partial local Ecclesiae” (Hort, Zhe Chr. Eccl. 
pp. 168-9). He means here that the nature of the whole of 
which the Corinthians are parts is that it is Body of Christ, 
not any other kind of whole. Consequently, whatever gift each 
one of them receives is not to be hidden away, or seifishly 
enjoyed, or exhibited for show, but to be used for the good of 
the whole community. The é¢€ marks a return to what was laid 
down in vz. 12. 

peAn €k pépous. membra de membro(Vulg.); membra ex parte 
(Calv.) ; membra particulatim (Beza). The meaning is uncertain, 
but probably, ‘members each in his assigned part,’ ‘apportioned 
members of it.’ Chrysostom and Bengel explain that the 
Corinthians were not the whole Church, but ‘members of a 
part’ of the Universalis Ecclesia. This seems to Calvin to be 
sensus coactior, and he prefers the other interpretation. Still 
less satisfactory is the explanation ‘partial members of it,’ 
i.e. imperfect members, which does not suit the context at 
all. Cf. Eph. iv. 16, 


The Vulgate, with def Arm., supports D* in reading wé\y éx péQdovs. 
Origen and Eusebius commonly have pépous, but once each has péXovs : 
Theodoret the same. Chrysostom always pépous. 


28. Kai ods pév Beto 6 Oeds ev TH exxAnoia. The correspond- 
ence with v. 18 is manifest, and it must be marked in translation. 
‘And some God placed in the Church,’ or ‘in His Church’ 
(i. 2, X. 32, xi, 16, 22, xv.9). Just as God in the original con- 
stitution of the body placed differently endowed members in it, 
so in the original constitution of the Church He placed (Acts 
xx. 28) differently endowed members in it. The mid. implies 
that He placed them for His own purpose, cas 76¢Anoev. The 
Church is the Church Universal, not the Corinthian Church ; 
and this is perhaps the first Epistle in which we find this use: 
comp. X. 32, xl. 22, xv.g; Hort, p. 117. The sentence should 
have run, ods pév arocrdXovus, ois 58 mpodyjras, but the original 
construction is abandoned, perhaps intentionally, because 
an arrangement in order of dignity seemed better than a 


XII. 28] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 279 


mere enumeration, the last place being again reserved for the 
Tongues. Later he drops into a mere enumeration. Moul.- 
Win. p. 710. 

mpatov dmootédous. Not to be restricted to the Twelve. 
The term included Paul and Barnabas, James the Lord’s brother 
(xv. 7; Gal. i. 19; comp. 1x. 5), apparently Andronicus and 
Junias (Rom. xvi. 7), and probably others (xv. 5, 7). There 
could not have been false apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13) unless the 
number of Apostles had been indefinite. From this passage, 
and from Eph. iv. 11 (comp. ii. 20), we learn that Apostles were 
the first order in the Church; also that St Peter is not an order 
by himself. Apparently it was essential that an Apostle should 
have seen the Lord, and especially the risen Lord (ix. 1, 2; 
Luke xxiv. 48; Acts i. 8, 21-23): he must be a ‘witness of 
His resurrection.’ This was true of Matthias, James, and Paul ; 
and may easily have been true of Barnabas, Andronicus, and 
Junias; but not of Apollos or Timothy. The Apostles were 
analogous to the Prophets of the O.T., being sent to the 
new Israel, as the Prophets to the old. They had admini- 
strative functions, but no local jurisdiction: they belonged to 
the whole Church. Nevertheless various ties made _ local 
Churches to be more under the control of one Apostle than of 
others. See Lightfoot, Ga/atians, pp. g2f. The ‘evangelists’ 
and ‘pastors’ of Eph. iv. 11 are perhaps included here under 
‘prophets and teachers.’ But evangelists are not ad rem here, 
because the subject is the spiritual life of members of the 
Church, and their relations to one another zz the Church, rather 
than their external activity among the heathen. The enumera- 
tion here is more concrete than that in vv. 8-10, but less 
concrete than in Eph. iv. rr. The first three are explicitly in 
order of eminence ; but the érecra with the next two probably 
means no more than that these come after the first three. The 
gifts that follow the first three are not connected with particular 
persons, but are distributed ‘at will’ for the profit of the whole 
congregation; and it is remarkable that dvvayes and yapiopara 
iapatwv are placed after duacxadovs. See Dobschitz, Probleme, 
«LOG: 
Br See on v. 10 and xiv. 3, 24, 25. They were 
inspired to utter the deep things of God, for the conviction of 
sin, for edification, and for comfort; sometimes also for pre- 
dicting the future, as in the case of Agabus. 

8.8ackddous. Men whose natural powers and acquired know- 
ledge were augmented by a special gift. It is evident from ‘ Are 
all teachers ?’ (v. 29) that there was a class of teachers to which 
only some Christians belonged, and the questions which follow 
show that ‘ teachers,’ like ‘ workers of miracles,’ were distinguished 


280 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS { XII. 28 


by the possession of some gift.* In Eph. iv. 11 we are not 
sure whether ‘ pastors and teachers’ means one class or two, but 
at any rate it is probable that whereas ‘ Apostles,’ ‘ prophets,’ 
and ‘evangelists’ instructed both the converted and the uncon- 
verted, ‘pastors and teachers’ ministered to settled congregations. 
In Acts xiii. 1 we are equally in doubt whether ‘prophets and 
teachers’ means one class or two. St Luke may mean that of 
the five people mentioned some were prophets and some were 
teachers, or he may mean that all were both. ‘Teacher’ might 
be applied to Apostles, prophets, and evangelists, as well as to 
the special class of teachers. In 1 Tim. ii. 7 St Paul calls 
himself a ‘preacher’ (xjpvé), an ‘ Apostle,’ and a ‘teacher.’ In 
the Didache the ‘teacher’ seems to be itinerant like the 
‘prophet’ (xiii. 2). When the ministry became more settled 
the ‘bishops’ and ‘elders’ seem to have become the official 
teachers ; but perhaps not all elders taught (1 Tim. v. 17). In 
the Shepherd of Hermas the teachers are still distinct from the 
bishops ; ‘‘The stones that are squared and white, and that fit 
together in their joints, these are the Apostles and bishops and 
teachers and deacons” (Vis. iii. 5). See Hastings, DZ. 1Vv. 
p- 691; Lucy. Bibl. tv. 4917. 

€reita Suvdpers, Emetta xapiopata tapatwv. Change from the 
concrete to the abstract, perhaps for the sake of variety; in 
Rom. xii. 7 the converse change is made. We must not 
count érera, érecra as equivalent to ‘fourthly, fifthly’: the 
classification according to rank ends with ‘teachers,’ but yevy 
yAwooov are purposely placed last. ‘Gifts of healing’ are 
a special kind of ‘miraculous powers’: see on wv. 9, where the 
less comprehensive gift is placed first, while here we descend 
from the general to the particular. It would bea lesson to the 
Corinthians to hear these brilliant gifts expressly declared to be 
inferior to teaching ; the éera clearly means that. 

avruAnpwers. This and the next gift form a pair, referring to 
general management of an external character. This term occurs 
nowhere else in the N.T., but it comes from avrAapBaverbau 
(Luke i. 54; Acts xx. 35; 1 Tim. vi. 2; comp. Rom. viii. 26), 


* “Tt is impossible to determine exactly how people were recognized as 
teachers. One clue, however, seems visible in Jas. iii. 1. From this it 
follows that to become a teacher was a matter of personal choice—based, of 
course, upon the individual’s consciousness of possessing a charisma” 
(Harnack, Zhe Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 1. p. 336; p- 243, 
ed. 1902). The whole chapter (1st of the 3rd Book) should be read. It 
shows that the order ‘Apostles, prophets, and teachers’ is very early. 
*“St Paul is thinking without doubt of some arrangement in the Church 
which held good among Jewish Christian communities founded apart from 
7 co-operation, no less than among the communities of Greece and Asia 
4i1nor, 


XII. 28] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 281 


which means to take firm hold of some one, in order to help. 
These ‘helpings’ therefore probably refer to the succouring of 
those in need, whether poor, sick, widows, orphans, strangers, 
travellers, or what not; the work of the diaconate, both male 
and female. We have those who need ayriAnpies (Ecclus. xi. 12, 
li. 7). The word is fairly common in the Psalms and 2 and 
3 Mac. See also Psalms of Solomon vii. 9, xvi. title. 

kuBepryoets. ‘Governings’ or ‘administrations.’ This pro- 
bably refers to those who superintended the externals of organ- 
ization, of rpovorapevor (Rom. xil. 8; 1 Thess. v. 12), or ot 7yov- 
peva (Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24; Acts xv. 225 Clem: ‘Rom: Cor. 1). 
See Hort, Zhe Chr. Eccl. p. 126. The word is derived from the 
idea of piloting a ship (Acts xxvii. rr; Rev. xviii. 17), and hence 
easily acquires the sense of directing with skill and wisdom: ofs px) 
trdpxer KuBepyyow, wittovow ws pvdAa, ult non est gubernator, 
populus corruet (Proy. xi. 14). The term, which is found nowhere 
else in N.T., may be equivalent to érfoxoro: and mpeoBurepo.. 
We must, however, remember that we are here dealing with 
gifts rather than with the offices which grew out of the gifts. 

These two classes, av7iwAjpwWes and kvBepvyces, are not 
mentioned in vv. 5-10}; nor are they repeated in vv. 29, 30. 
But Stanley would identify the former with the 4e// rendered in 
the ‘intepretation of tongues,’ and the latter with the guidance 
given in the ‘discerning of spirits.’ This is not at all probable. 
See Deissmann, ible Studies, p. 92. 

With regard to the subordinate position which these two 
gifts have in the one list which contains them, Renan (Sazn¢ 
Paul, pp. 409, 410) has a fine passage. ‘Malheur a celui qui 
s’arréterait 4 la surface, et qui, pour deux ou trois dons chimér- 
iques, oublierait que dans cette étrange énumération, parmi les 
diacontes et les charismata de \Eglise primitive, se trouve le soin 
de ceux qui souffrent, l’administration des deniers du pauvre, 
assistance réciproque! Paule énumére ces fonctions en dernier 
lieu et comme d’humbles choses. Mais son regard percant sait 
encore ici voir le vrai. ‘ Prenez garde,’ dit-il; ‘nos membres 
les moins nobles sont justement les plus honorés.’ Prophetes, 
docteurs, vous passerez. Diacres, veuves dévouées, vous 
resterez ; vous fondez pour l’éternité.” * 


éreira.. . . recta is right (§ ABC), not éwe:ra.. . elra (KL, f Vulg. 
deinde . . . exinde), nor ére:ra, without either to follow (DEF G). 
Vulg. after genera linguarum adds interpretationes sermonum from v. 10, 
But whence comes the change to sermonum? Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. 
v. 8) has genera linguarum ... interpretatio... linguarum. 





* The shortness of the list of charismata in Eph. iv. 11 as compared with 
the list here is perhaps an indication that the regular exercise of extraordinary 
gifts in public worship was already dying out. Hastings, D&. 111. p. 141. 


282 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS { XII. 29-31 


29. ph mavtes dmdotoho; ‘Surely all are not Apostles?’ 
These rhetorical questions explain péAn é« pepovs (v. 27) and 
look back to r6 oGpa ovK ev pédos aA modAa (v. 14). God did 
not give all these spiritual gifts to all. That would have been to 
make each member a kind of complete body, independent of the 
other members; and this would have been fatal to the whole. 
He has made no one member self-sufficient ; each needs much 
from others and supplies something to them. See Godet. Here 
all the illustrations are concrete, with the possible exception of 
duvdwes. But seeing that duvayes and yap. iapdtwy form a pair, 
we may put the two questions together and take €xovow with 
both terms; ‘Have all (the power of working) miracles, all 
gifts of healing?’ The Vulgate may be taken in a similar 
manner; Mumguid omnes virtutes, numquid omnes gratiam habent 
curationum? but again, why the change from graftias (v. 28) to 
gratiam? For the third time the gift of Tongues is placed 
last. 


30. The compound verb diepunvedw here has led to the reading dtep- 
knveia (or -ca) in v. 10 (A D*). The compound (xiv. 5, 13,27; Luke 
xxiv. 27; Acts ix. 36) is more common in the N.T. than the more classical 
épunvedw (John i. 43, ix. 7; Heb. vii. 2). As language weakens, the ten- 
dency to strengthen by means of compounds increases. With the general 
sense of the two verses compare Hom. //, xiii. 729; "AAN o8 mows dua 
mwdvra Suvicea avtos dobar, and the familiar 20 omnia possumus omnes. 


31. {ndodre S€ Ta Xapiopata Ta peiLova. ‘Continue to desire 
earnestly (pres. imperat.) the greater gifts.’ The Corinthians 
coveted the greater gifts, but they had formed a wrong estimate 
as to which were the greater. ‘The Hymn of Love, which follows, 
is to guide them to a better decision: not those which make 
most show, but those which do most good, are the better. As 
members of one and the same body they must exhibit self- 
sacrificing love, and they must use their gifts for the benefit of 
the whole body. This is the lesson of ch. xiv. We cannot all 
of us have all the best gifts; but (8¢) by prayer and habitual 
preparation we can strive to obtain them: and a continual 
desire is in itself a preparation. Mévere émiOvpodvres yapioparov, 
as Chrysostom says. For fjAodre comp. xiv. 1, 39; and eLyAwoa 
70 ayabév (Ecclus. li. 18). The verb is also used in a bad 
sense, ‘be moved with envy or hatred’ (xiii. 4; Acts vii. 9, 
xvii. 5). See Hort and also Mayor on Jas. iv. 2. It is perhaps 
with a doudle entendre that it is used here, as an indirect rebuke 
to the jealousy with which some of them regarded the gifts 
bestowed on others. Chrysostom (Hom. xxxi. 4) has some 
strong remarks on jealousy, as the chief cause of dissension, 
and as even more deadly in its effects than avarice. Hucusgue 
revocavit illos a schismate ad concordiam et unionem, ut nullus 


XII. 31} SPIRITUAL GIFTS 283 


glorietur de charismate superiori, nullusque doleat de inferiori. 
Hine eos tn charttatem innutt, ostendens sine ea nthtl caetera 
valere (Herveius). Sicut publica via excelsior est reliquts viis ac 
semitts, tta et charitas via est directa, per quam ad coelestem 
metropolim tenditur (Primasius). 

kal €te kad dwepBodty o86v piv Setkvupr. There is no con- 
trast with what precedes (‘And yet,’ AV.): on the contrary, kai 
means ‘And in accordance with this charge to desire what is 
best,’ while ére belongs to what follows; ‘And a still more 
excellent way show I to you,’ xa@ taepBodyv being equivalent 
to a comparative, exce/lentiorem viam (Vulg.). If ére be taken 
with «at, it means ‘moreover,’ ef forvo (Beza); ‘And besides, I 
show you a supremely excellent way.’ What is this way xar 
efoxyv? Is it the way by which the greater gifts are to be 
reached? Or is it the way by which something better than 
these gifts may be reached? The latter seems to be right. 
‘Yearn for the best gifts; that is good, as far as it goes. But 
the gifts do not make you better Christians; and I am going to 
point out the way to something better, which will show you the 
best gifts, and how to use them.’* xiv. 1 confirms this view. 


There is considerable evidence (D EF GK L, Vulg. Arm.) for xpeirrova 
or Kpetooova, and Chrys. expressly prefers the reading ; but pelfova (N A BC, 
Am. Aeth., Orig.) is probably right. 

In the N.T. tepBody is confined to this group of the Pauline Epp. 
(1 and 2 Cor. Gal. Rom.), and generally in this phrase, xa’ imepBodnv. 
Comp. Rom. vii. 13. 

Klostermann adopts the reading of D*; kal ef rt Kad” barepBodyv, ddov 
tiv delkvust, ‘And if (ye desire earnestly) something superlatively good, 
I show you a way.’ But the earliest versions confirm the other MSS. in 
reading é7t, 


The Spiritual Gifts. 


In this chapter we have had three enumerations of these gifts (vv. 8-10, 
28, 29-30) ; and in Romans (xii. 6-8) and Ephesians (iv. 11) we have other 
lists. It will be useful to compare the five statenients, 


1 Cor, xii. 8-10 xii. 28 xli, 29, 30 
I. Aovyos copias I. dmocro\ot I. dmocroXot 
3. Advyos ywurews 2. mpopyrar 2. TpopHrat 
mlores 3. dddoKadoe 3. duddaoKadot 
5: xap. layarwv 4. duvdamers 4. duvdmers 
4. évepy. duvdpewv 5. xap. laudrwv 5. xap. laudrwy 
2. mpopnrela 6. avrirjupers 
diakp. mvevudaTow 7. KuBepynoets 
8. yévn yAwoo dy 8. yévn ywooav 8. yAwooats Nadeiv 
g. €pu. yrwooav 9. Q. dtepunvevew 


* Comp. the use of 7 650s, ‘the Way’ par excellence, for Christianity 
(Acts ix. 2, xix. 9, 23, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, 22). Bengel has via maxime vialis : 
it has the true characteristic of a way in perfection. 


284 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XII. 31 


Rom. xii. 6-8, Eph. iv. 11. 

2. mpopnrela I. dmdoroXot 
diaxovla 2. moopyrat 

3. didackanla evayyenoral 
mapaxAnows mouéves Kal 
peradddvat 3. dddoKador 
mpoicrad Bat 


It will be observed that in four of the lists there are at least two gifts 
which are not mentioned in the other lists: in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, miorts and 
Sidxpures wvevudrwv ; in xii. 28, dvrAnmpers and xuBepyjoecs: in Rom. xii. 
6-8, daxovia, rapdxAnots, weraddovat, and mpoicrac@ar; and in Eph. iv. 11, 
edayyeNoral and romeéves, if rouséves is a separate class from dtddoxaho. We 
must not assume that in all cases the difference of name means a difference 
of gift or of function. We may tentatively identify daxovia with avriknpyis, 
and of mpowrrdmevoe with xuBepyijcecs, and perhaps with owéves. We have 
St Paul’s own authority for placing drécroko, mpopyrar, and diddeKadot 
above all the rest, and in that order; and for placing yévy yAwoodv with 
épunvela yNwooGy last. Taking xii. 28 as our guide, we notice that, of the 
nine gifts enumerated, three are those in which teaching is the common 
element, two are wonder-working, two are administrative, and two are 
ecstatic. The three pairs are valuable, especially the first two, yet they are 
not indispensable ; but powers of teaching are indispensable. If there is no 
one to teach with sureness and authority, the Christian Church cannot be 
built up and cannot grow. But it must be remembered once more that we 
are treating of various gifts bestowed upon various persons, some of whom 
had more than one gift, and that some Christians had no special endowment. 
We are not dealing with classes of officials, each with definite functions ; 
munus in the sense of donum has not yet passed into munus in the sense of 
offictum, and the process of transition has scarcely begun. In correcting the 
errors into which the Corinthians had fallen, the Apostle does not tell any 
officials to take action, but addresses the congregation as a whole. The 
inference is that there were no officials in the ecclestastical sense, although, as 
in every society, there were leading men. See Zucy. Bibl. 1. 1038, 111. 3108, 
IV. 4759; Hastings, DA. 111. 377; Hort, Chr. Eccles. pp. 203 f. 

Novatian (De 7yinttate xxix.) paraphrases this passage thus; Hc est 
enim qui prophetas in ecclesia constitutt, magistros erudit, linguas dirigit, 
virlules et sanitates factt, opera mirabilia gerit, discretiones spirituum por- 
rigit, gubernationes contribuit, consilia suggerit, guaeque alia sunt charis- 
matum dona componit et dizerit ; et tdeo ecclesiam domini undique et in 
omnibus perjectam et consummatam facit ; where (as in ix. and xii.) Novatian 
evidently uses sanztates in the sense of ‘cures.’ 

On our scanty knowledge of the organization of the Apostolic Churches 
see Gwatkin, Early Church History, i. pp. 64-72. 


ADDITIONAL NOTE ON XII. 3. 


If the theory is correct that the Christ party were docetists, who used 
the name of Christ in opposition, not merely to the names of Paul, Apollos, 
and Kephas, but also to the name of Jesus, then the cry ‘Jesus be 
anathema’ might express their contempt for ‘ knowing Christ after the flesh.’ 
They would have nothing to do with any external or material reality, and 
in this spirit perhaps denied that there could be any resurrection of the 
body, either in the case of Christ or of any one else. See B. W. Bacon, 
/nirod. to N.T. p. 92. There may have been docetists at Corinth, whether 
they belonged to the Christ party or not. 


XIII. 1-13] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 285 


XIII. 1-18. A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE, 


The thirteenth chapter stands to the whole discussion*on 
Spiritual Gifts in a relation closely similar to that of the digression 
on self-limitation (ch. ix.) to the discussion of eiSwAdura. Either 
chapter raises the whole subject of its main section to the level 
of a central principle. The principle is in each case the same 
in kind, namely, that of subordinating (the lower) self to the 
good of others; but in this chapter the principle itself is raised 
to its highest power: from forbearance, or mere self-limitation, 
we ascend to love. ; 

The chapter, although a.digression,;«is yet a step in the 
treatment of the subject of Spiritual Gifts (xii. 1-xiv. 40), 
and forms in itself a complete and beautiful whole. After 
the promise that he will point out a still more surpassing 
way, there is, as it were, a moment of suspense; and then sam 
ardet Paulus et fertur in amorem (Beng.). Stanley imagines 
“how the Apostle’s amanuensis must have paused to look up in 
his master’s face at the sudden change in the style of his dicta- 
tion, and seen his countenance lit up as it had been the face of 
an angel, as this vision of Divine perfection passed before him” 
(p. 238). Writer after writer has expatiated upon its literary and 
rhythmical beauty, which places it among the finest passages in 
the sacred, or, indeed, in any writings.* We may compare 
ch. xv., Rom. viii. 31-39, and—on a much lower plane—the 
torrent of invective in 2 Cor. xi. 19-29. This chapter is a 
divine zpodyreta, which might have for its title that which dis- 
tinguishes Ps. xlv.,—‘ A Song of Love’ or ‘of Loves.’ And it is 
noteworthy that these praises of Love come, not from the Apostle 
of Love, but from the Apostle of Faith. It is not a fact that 
the Apostles are one-sided and prejudiced, each seeing only the 
gift which he specially esteems. Just as it is St John who says, 
‘This is the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith,’ 
so it is St Paul who declares that greater than all gifts is Love. 

No distinction is drawn between love to God and love to 
man. Throughout the chapter it is the root-principle that is 
meant ; tya7y \in its most perfect and complete sense. But it 
is specially in reference to its manifestations to men that it is 
praised, and most of the features selected as characteristic of it 
are just those in which the Corinthians had proved defective. 


* “The greatest, strongest, deepest thing Paul ever wrote” (Harnack). 

“‘T never read 1 Cor. xiii. without thinking of the description of the 
virtues in the WVicomachean Ethics. St Paul’s ethical teaching has quite an 
Hellenic ring. It is philosophical, as resting on a definite principle, viz. our 
new life in Christ ; and it is logical, as classifying virtues and duties according 
to some intelligible principle” (E. L. Hicks, Studia Bib/ica, iv. p. 9. 


286 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII. 1-13 


And this deficiency is fatal. Christian Love is that something 
without which everything else is nothing, and which would be 
all-sufficient, even were it alone. It is not merely an attribute 
of God, it is His very nature, and no other moral term is thus 
used of Him (1 John iv. 8, 16). See W. E. Chadwick, Zhe 
Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, ch. vi.; Moffatt, Lit. of N.T., 
Ppp. 57, 58). ; ’ : 

This hymn in praise of love is of importance with regard to 
the question of St Paul’s personal knowledge of Jesus Christ. 
It is too often forgotten that Saul of Tarsus was a contemporary 
of our Lord, and the tendency of historical criticism at the 
present time is to place the date of Saul’s conversion not very 
long after the Ascension. Furrer and Clemen would argue for 
this. Saul may not have been in Jerusalem at the time of the 
Crucifixion and Resurrection; but he would have abundant 
means of getting evidence at first hand about both, after the 
Appearance on the road to Damascus had made it imperative 
that he should do so; and some have seen evidence of exact 
knowledge of the life and character of Jesus of Nazareth in this 
marvellous analysis of the nature and attributes of Love. We 
have only, it is said, to substitute Jesus for Love throughout the 
chapter, and St Paul’s panegyric ‘becomes a simple and perfect 
description of the historic Jesus” (Zhe Fifth Gospel, p. 153). 
Intellect was worshipped in Greece, and power in Rome; but 
where did St Paul learn the surpassing beauty of love? ‘It was 
the life of love which Jesus lived which made the psalm of love 
which Paul wrote possible” (zézd.). Jn this chapter, as in Rom. 
xii., “we note that very significant transference of the centre of 
gravity in morals from justice to the sphere of the affections.” 
See Inge, in Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 271. 

Most commentators and translators are agreed that here, as in the 
writings of St John, dyday should be rendered ‘ love’ rather than ‘charity’ ; 
for the contrary view see Evans, p. 376. In the Vulgate, d-yd7r7 is usually 
translated carzfas, but dlectio is fairly common, and to this variation the 
inconsistencies in the AV. are due. The RV. has abolished them, and the 
gain is great. ‘Charity’ has become greatly narrowed in meaning, and 
now is understood as signifying either ‘ giving to the poor’ or ‘toleration of 
differences of opinion.’ In the former and commonest sense it makes v. 3 
self-contradictory, —almsgiving without ‘charity.’ SeeSandayand Headlam, 
Romans, p. 374; Stanley, Corinthians, p- 240. 

The chapter falls into three clearly marked parts. (1) The 
Necessity of possessing Love, 1-3; (2) Its glorious Character- 
istics, 4-7 ; Its eternal Durability, 8—13. 


The one indispensable gift is Love. If one were to have 
all the special gifts in the highest perfection, without having 


Love, one would produce nothing, be nothing, and gain | 


XIII. 1-18] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 287 


nothing. Love includes all the most beautiful features of 
moral character, and excludes all the offensive ones. More- 
over, tt is far more durable than even the best of the special 
gifts. They are of use in this world only; Love, with 
Faith and Hope, endures both tn this world and in the next. 


1T may talk with the tongues of men, yea of angels; yet, 

if I have no Love, so far from doing any good to a Christian 
assembly, I am become like the senseless din in heathen 
worships. ?And I may have the gift of inspired preaching, and 
see my way through all the mysteries of the Kingdom of God 
and all the knowledge that man can attain; and I may have all 
the fulness of faith, so as to move mountains; yet, if I have no 
Love, so far from being a Christian of great account, I am 
nothing. *I may even dole out with my own hands everything 
that I possess,—may even, like the Three Children, surrender 
my body to the flames; yet, if I have no Love, so far from 
becoming a saint or a hero, or from winning a rich recompense 
from Heaven, Iam not one whit the better. Love is the one 
thing that counts. 
+ For Love is patient and kind; Love knows no hatred or envy. 

It is never a braggart in mien, or swells with self-adulation ; 
5 It never offends good feeling, or insists on all it has claim to; 

It never blazes with rage, and it stores up no resentment. 


®Tt delights not over the wrong that men do, 
But responds with delight to true dealing. 

TUnfailingly tolerant, unfailingly trustful, 
Unfailingly hopeful, unfailingly strong. 


8 The time will never come for Love to die. 
There will be a time when our prophesyings will be useless ; 
There will be a time when these Tongues will cease ; 
There will be a time when our knowledge will be useless. 


® For our knowledge is but of fragments, 
And our prophesyings but of fragments. 


10 But when absolute completeness shall have come, 

Then that which is of fragments will have no use. 
The difference is far greater than that which distinguishes 
childhood from manhood ; and yet, even there, how marked the 


288 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIITI. 1-3 


change! ™When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, to 
think as a child, to reason as a child. Since I am become a 
man, I have done away with childhood’s ways. 1In a similar 
way, what we now see are but reflexions from a mirror which 
clouds and confuses things, so that we can only guess at the 
realities ; but in the next world we shall have them face to face. 
The knowledge that I now have is only of fragments; but then 
I shall know as completely as God from the first knew me. 

18So then, Faith, Hope, and Love last on—just these three : 
but chiefest and best is Love. 


1-3. All four classes of gifts (xii. 28) are included here: the 
ecstatic inv. 1 ; the teaching (xpofyrefa) and the wonder-working 
(wioms) gifts in v. 2; and the administrative in v. 3. The 
Apostle takes the lowest of these*special gifts first, because the 
Corinthians specially needed to be set right about them, and 
also because the least valuable of the special gifts made the 
strongest contrast to the excellence of Love. Speaking with 
Tongues and having no Love was only too common at Corinth. 
There is a climax in the succession, yAdooat, rpopyrteia, riots, 
Yopulow cai rapado. To mark this one may perhaps translate xai 
édv in v. 3 ‘even if’; but in strict grammar kai éav is throughout 
simply ‘and if.’ 

"Edv tats yNdooas . . . AaAd. A mere objective possibility 
connected with the future; ‘If I should speak with the tongues 
of men and of angels,’ not ‘ Zhough I speak’ (AV.). The 
addition of xai rév dyyéAwr gives the supposition about rapturous 
utterances the widest possible sweep ; ‘ Supposing that I had all 
the powers of earthly and heavenly utterance.’ The reference 
to the Tongues need not be questioned. For the combination, 
‘angels and men,’ comp. iv. 9. The language of angels was a 
subject which the Jews discussed, some Rabbis maintaining that 
it was Hebrew. Origen suggests that it is as superior to that of 
men as that of men is to the inarticulate cries of infants ; but 
Xwpis dyarys, yYAGooa xiv ayyéduv ev dvOpdiros Kal iadbeow 7, 
atpavwtos éotw (JTS. x. 37, p. 33), Ambrose (De off. ministr. 
li. 27), St volumus commendare nos Deo, caritatem habeamus. See 
Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, p.245. With the supposition here 
comp. 


Ovid’ et pot dexa pev yAdooa déxa dé ordpar elev, 
puvi 8 dppyxtos, xdAxeov dé por Hrop évecy. 

Hom. //. ii. 489. 
Non, mihi si linguae centum sint, oraque centum, 
Ferrea vox. Virg. Georg. ii. 44; Aen. vi. 625. 


XIII. 2] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 289 


Godet has useful warnings against the “ religious sybaritism ” 
which, especially during the excitement of religious ‘ revivals,” is 
apt to turn Christianity into sentiment and fine speaking. The 
gift of Tongues might lead tothis. The Apostle sets an example 
of love and of humility in taking himself as the illustration of 
failure. He might have said, ‘ If you should speak,’ or ‘ Although 
you speak.’ But he remembers his own gift of Tongues (xiv. 18), 
and gives the warning to himself all through these three verses. 

dydany Sé ph €xw, yeyova k.t.A. ‘And should not have love’ 
(viii. 1), or, ‘while I have not love,’ on that assumption ‘I am 
become (Gal. iv. 16) sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.’ The 
xahxés probably means something of the nature of a gong rather 
than a trumpet ; and é\addfov imitates loud and prolonged noise, 
often of the shout of victory (Josh. vi. 20; 1 Sam. xvii. 52), but 
sometimes of grief (Jer. iv. 8; Mark v. 38). Cymbals are often 
mentioned in the O.T., but nowhere else in the N.T.; and in 
St Paul’s day they were much used in the worship of Dionysus, 
Cybele, and the Corybantes. Seeing that he insists so strongly 
on the unedifying character of the Tongues (xiv.), as being of no 
service to the congregation without a special interpreter, it is 
quite possible that he is here comparing unintelligible Tongues 
in Christian worship with the din of gongs and cymbals in pagan 
worship. Or he may be pointing out the worthlessness of 
extravagant manifestations of emotion, which proceed, not from 
the heart, but from hollowness. Cymbals were hollow, to 
increase the noise. Or he may be merely saying that Tongues 
without Christian love are as senseless as the unmusical and 
distracting noise of a soulless instrument. Awdwvatoy yadxeloy is 
said to have been a proverbial expression for an empty talker ; 
and it was probably on account of his vainglorious loquacity that 
Apion the grammarian, against whom Josephus wrote, was called 
by Tiberius cymbalum mundi: optixds tis Kat maxis Tots 
moAXots, as Chrysostom paraphrases here. 

On daydmn see above ; Trench, Syx. § xii.; Cremer, pp. 13 f. ; 
Suicer, i. pp. 18 f.; Hastings, DA. iil. p. 156; Deissmann, Bible 
Studies, p. 199, Light, pp. 18, 70, and see 150, 399. “Hyetr is 
frequent in LXX, but is found nowhere else in N.T. 


2. kav éxw mpopytelav x.t.A. ‘And if I should have the gift 
of prophesying (preaching with special inspiration), and should 
know ad/ the mysteries (of God’s counsels and will), and a// 
possible knowledge about them (xii. 8), and if I should have a// 
possible faith (xii. 9), so as to remove mountains, while I have 
no love, I am nothing ’—spiritually a cipher. Having said that 
the ecstatic gifts are worthless without love, he now says that the 
teaching gifts are equally worthless; and perhaps he is here 


19 


290 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XIII. 2,3 


indicating the three kinds of spiritual instructors (xii. 8, 10, 28), 
for ra pvotypia mdvra may refer to the codia of the droaroda, 
and racav tiv yvdow to the yvdats of the d:ddcxado. Comp. 
Rom. xi. 33, xv. 14. (By wioris is meant wonder-working ith 
not saving faith ; ‘enough to displace mountains’: comp. 7a opy™\ 
peraoticerba (Isa. liv. 10). It is possible that St Paul is 
alluding to our Lord’s saying (Mark xi. 22; Matt. xvii. 20, xxi. 
21), although of course not to Gospels which were not yet 
written. But it is quite as probable that both He and the 
Apostle used a proverbial expression, moving mountains being a 
common metaphor for a great difficulty.) See Abbott, Zhe Son 
of Man, p. 387. In N.T. the verb is found only in Paul and 
Luke. Balaam and Samson were instances of persons who had 
supernatural gifts and yet were morally degraded. For the com- 
bination of faith and knowledge, comp. 2 Cor. vill. 7, and for the 
emphatic repetition of was, 2 Cor. ix. 8. The abruptness of 
oifev eit, after the prolonged hypothesis of three clauses, is 
impressive. 

In vv. 2 and 3 the MSS. differ considerably between «dv and kal édv 
and cai dy. But it is proboble that «dy is right throughout, the evidence 
for it being stronger in v. 3 than inv. 2, but not decisive. For weficrdvac 
(% BDEFG) the external evidence is stronger than for pe@iordvew 
(AC KL, Orig. Chrys.) ; but, on the other hand, the unusual pe@iordvew 


would be likely to be altered to the common form. And ov#év (NA BCL) 
is to be preferred to otdév (D* FG K). 


3. We now pass on to the administrative gifts, avrvAnpyers 
(xii. 28), ministering to the bodily needs of the brethren, and 
that in what seems to be a specially self-denying form. 

kav Pwulow mavta Ta Smdpxovtd pou. ‘And if I should give 
away in doles of food all my possessions.’ There is no need to 
say anything about the recipients of the bounty, rovs zévnras 
(Chrys.), pauperum (Vulg.), ‘the poor’ (AV., RV.): it is the 
giver, not the recipients, that is in question. The verb implies 
perscna/ distribution to many, and that the act is done once for 
all: he could not habitually give away a// his goods. The ‘all’ 
continues the emphatic repetition of as: throughout he makes 
the supposition as strong as possible. We have Wwpuifw in Rom. 
xl. 20 and in the LXX (Num. xi. 4, 18; Deut. viii. 3, 16 of the 
manna; and often). In class. Grk. it is used of feeding 
children and young animals with Ywpod, ‘ morsels ’ (freq. in LXX) : 
Ywpiov, ‘sop,’ John xiii, 26. Si distribuero in cibos pauperum 
(Bey insumam in alimoniam (Calv.), insumam alendis egenis 

eza). 

kav mapadé .. . ivaxavOycopat. ‘And (even) if I deliver up 
myself to be burned.’ Literally, ‘ deliver up my body, so that I 
shall be burned.’ In the N.T. iva is often used where result is 


XITI. 3] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 291 


prominent and purpose in the background. It expresses a 
‘purposive result,” the subjective intention shading off into the 
objective effect ; and hence the use of the future: ix. 18; Gal. 
ll. 4; John vil. 3, xvii. 2, etc. ‘True love, as he proceeds to 
show, does not need the supreme crises which call for the 
sacrifice of all that one possesses or of one’s life,—a sacrifice 
which might be made without true love: it manifests itself at all 
times and inall circumstances. Sacrifices made without love may 
profit other people, but they do not profit the man_ himself. 
Von charitas de martyrio, sed martyrium nascitur ex charttate 
(Primasius). St Paul is not thinking of burning as a punishment, 
which it was not, nor of the branding of slaves, but of the most 


painful death which any one can voluntaril er. It was from 
this text that Dr. Richard Smith, Regius Professor of Divinity, 
preached at Oxford before the burning of Ridley and Latimer, 
16th October 1555. Comp. rapédwxav Ta odpata avtov eis rip 
(Dan. iii. 28, Theod. 95), which may be in the Apostle’s mind, and 
Tupt TO cpa Tapadovres, Of the Indians (Joseph. B./. vit. viii. 7). 

In each of the three suppositions we have a different result : 
‘I produce nothing of value’ (v. 1); ‘I am of no value’ (z. 2); 
‘I gain nothing of value’ (v. 3). The man who possessed all the 
gifts mentioned might be useful to the Church, but in character 
he would be worthless, if the one indispensable thing were 
lacking. The gifts are not valueless, but he is. 


It is by no means certain that xav@joouac(D EF GL, Latt. Syrr. Arm. 
Aeth, Goth., Method. Bas. Tert.), to which cav@jowuar (C K, Chrys.) give 
additional support, is the right reading. The evidence for xavyjowuat 
(NS AB 17, Aegyptt., Orig. Lat. MSS. known to Jer.) is very strong, and 
WH. (4. p. 117) argue strongly in favour of it. Clement of Rome (Cor. 
lv.) may be referring to the passage with this reading when he says, 
“* Many gave themselves up (€avrols mapédwxav) to slavery, and receiving 
the price paid for themselves fed (éYaioav) others.” If xavyijowua be 
adopted, it belongs to both clauses, not to the second only; ‘If I should 
dole away my goods in alms, and if I should give up my very body, all 
for the sake of glory, while I have no love, I am not a whit the better.’ 

But, as in the case of weAicrdvew (v. 2), we must consider more than the 
external evidence. Which would the Apostle be more likely to write, and 
which would be more likely to be changed by a copyist? ‘ Surrender my 
body,’ without saying how or to whom, is an unlikely expression. In the 
two preceding verses nothing is said about the presence of an unworthy 
motive, but only the absence of the one indispensable motive. And the 
introduction of the unworthy motive spoils the all-important ‘and have no 
love.’ No need to say that, if the motive is self-glorification. If the 
thought of Dan. iii. might have led a copyist to change kavy7jowuat into 
kavéjowpnat, it might equally well have led the Apostle to write ckavOjowmuac 
or Kkav@jcouar: comp. écBecav dSivauiy mupos (Heb. xi. 34). And if the 
original reading had been kavx7jowuat, would not cavéjowuar have been a 
more common reading than kav@joouac? Cyprian twice quotes, sz ¢radidero 
corpus meum ut ardeam, caritatem autem non habeam (Test. iii. 3; De 
cath. eccl. unit. 14), and the author of the tract on Re-baptism (13) has 


292 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XIII. 3,4 


elsi corpus meum tradidero, ita ut exurar igni, dilectionem autem non 
habeam. : 

The attractive suggestion of Stanley (p. 231) and of Lightfoot 
Colossians, p. 156, ed. 1875; p. 394, ed. 1892) that St Paul is thinking of 
‘the Indian's tomb,” with its boastful inscription, which he may have seen 
at Athens, confirms the reading xav@. rather than xavx., but it suits either. 
The tomb was still to be seen in Plutarch’s time (A/exander 69), and the 
inscription ran thus ; ‘‘ Zarmano-chegas, an Indian from Bargosa, according 
to the traditional customs of Indians, made himself immortal, and lies here ” 
(éavrdvy dwafavarioas xeirac). He had burnt himself alive on the funeral 
pyre. But it is more likely that St Paul would think of Jewish examples 
(1 Mace. ii. 59). 

Ywultw (K) for ywulow (X ABCD, etc.) is the correction of a copyist 
who did not see the significance of the aorist. 

With ovdé& (BC D F KL, not od0év, & A) SpeAoduat, comp. Matt. vi. 1, 
vii. 22, 23, xvi. 26, 


4-7. The Apostle, having shown the moral worthlessness 
and unproductiveness of the man who has many supernatural 
gifts and performs seemingly heroic acts without love, now 
depicts in rapturous praise the character that consists of just this 
one indispensable virtue. Every one of the moral excellences 
which he enumerates tells, for they are no mere abstractions, but 
are based on experience, and are aimed at the special faults 
exhibited by the Corinthians. And just as he personifies Sin, 
Death, and the Law in Romans, so here he personifies Love. 
The rhythm becomes lyrical. 

We have fourteen descriptive statements in pairs. The 
first pair of characteristics has both members positive. Four 
pairs of negative characteristics follow, the last member being 
stated both negatively and positively (v. 6); and then we have 
two more pairs of positive characteristics (v. 7). 


‘H dydarn paxpodue?, xpnoreverac® 
“H dydwrn ob dot, ob eprepeverat, 
od pva.ovrat, o'Kk doxnuovel, 
ob (nret Ta éauTfs, ob mapokiverat, 
od Noylferar 7d Kakdv, od yxalper eri rH ddixlg, 
cuwvxalper 6¢ TH dd7nOeia’ 
wdvra oréyel, mdvra miorever, 
mdavra édNrlfer, mdvra vropéver. 


4. paxpobupet. ‘Is long-suffering, long-tempered,’ longanimis 
(Erasm.): it is slow to anger, slow to take offence or to inflict 
punishment.* While trouovy (2 Cor. i. 6, vi. 4, xii. 12; Luke 
only in the Gospels, etc.) is endurance of suffering without 
giving way, paxpofupia (2 Cor. vi. 6; Rom. ii. 4, ix. 22, etc. ;. 
not in the Gospels) is patience of injuries without paying back. 


* Quod si te illud movet, quod solemus eam quam Graeci paxpoOuplay 
vocant, /onganimztatem interpretari, animadvertere licet a corpore ad animum 
multa we transferri, sicut ab animo ad corpus (Aug. De guantitate animae 
xvii. 30). 


XIII. 4, 5] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 293 


It is the opposite of 6&v@vpia, ‘quick’ or ‘short temper’: 
comp. Jas. i. 19, and the adaptation of these verses in Clem. 
Rom. Cor. 49. 

xpyoteverar. ‘Is kind in demeanour,’ ‘plays the gentle 
part.’ While paxpo@. gives the passive side in reference to 
injuries received, ypyor. gives the active side in reference 
to benefits bestowed. Nowhere else in the Bible is xpyorever Oar 
found, but xpyororys and xpyords are frequent in both the LXX 
and N.T. See Clem. Rom. Cov. 18. 

i) dydan od Lndot. “H dydry is repeated at the beginning 
of the negative characteristics ; it is to be taken with ov fyAoi, 
not with xpyorevera. ‘Love knows neither jealousy nor envy.’ 
The verb covers both vices, and perhaps others; ‘boil (£éw) 
with hatred or jealousy’ is apparently the original meaning 
(Acts vii. 9, xvii. 5; Jas. iv. 2). Contrast xii. 31, xiv. 1, 39; 
2 Cor. xi. 2, To covet good gifts is right, to envy gifted 
persons is wrong; for envy and jealousy lead to division and 
strife (iii. 1). 

od tepmepeverar. ‘Does not play the braggart’ (épzepos) ; 
late Greek, and not elsewhere in the Bible. Marcus Aurelius 
couples it with yAucypeverOar, Kai KoAaxevev, Kal dpecxever Oat 
(v. 5). Ostentation is the chief idea. Clem. Alex. (Paed. 11. 
i, p. 251) says; Ileprepeta yap 6 xadAwriopds, mepirroryros 
Kal dxpetytos éxwv eudacw. Origen applies it especially to 
intellectual pride; Cicero (Eff. ad Attic. 1. xiv. 4) uses it of 
rhetorical display. Tert. (De Paz. 12) translates; non protervum 
sapit, which is not so very different from Chrys. (ad Joc.) ob 
mpometeverat. Hesychius says that the zépzepos is pera BAakelas 
ératpopevos. Evidently the word had various shades of meaning : 
see Wetstein and Suicer. But the idea of ostentatious boasting 
leads easily to the next point. 

o8 gucwodrar. ‘Does not puff itself out’ (iv. 6, 18, 19, v. 2, 
viii. 1; Col. ii. 18; and not elsewhere in the N.T.). “He 
who subjects himself to his neighbour in love can never be 
humiliated ” (Basil to Atarbius, //. 65). 


A third 4 dydmrn between od (moi and ob reprep. (NACDEFGKL, 
Syrr. Goth.) is probably not genuine (om. B 17 and other cursives, Vulg. 
Copt. Arm. Grk. and Lat. Fathers). ‘H dyday at the beginning of the 
positive and of the negative characteristics is in place; a third is super- 
fluous. If it be inserted, it belongs, like the other two, to what follows. 
The punctuation, 47 dydrn paxpobupet, xpyoreverar ] dydan, ob fro h 
ayd7n, is clumsy. 


5. odk doxnpovet. Comp. vil. 36. In both places ‘behave 
unmannerly,’ rather than ‘suffer shame’ or ‘seem vile’ (Deut. 
xxv. 3), is the meaning. Love is tactful, and does nothing 
that would raise a blush: mon agit indecenter (Calv.), indecore 


294 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII 5, 6 


(Beza), rather than non est ambitiosa (Vulg.), fastidiosa (Erasm.). 
The verb occurs in LXX, but nowhere else in N.T., excepting 
vi. 36. M. Aurelius (xi. 1) assigns properties to the rational 
soul (Aoytx?) Yuyxy) which remind us of those which the Apostle 
assigns to dydry, eg. To didctv Tols mAnoiov, Kal GAnGea, Kai 
aidds. j 

ra éauris. ‘Its own interests’: x. 24, 33. This makes 
nobler sense than the reading 1ro pH éavrjs (B, Clem-Alex.). 
That Love does not try to defraud would be bathos here. 
This statement perhaps looks back to the law-suits in ch. vi. 

od mwapogiverar. Not merely ‘does not fly into a rage,’ but 
‘does not yield to provocation’: it is not embittered by 
injuries, whether real or supposed. Elsewhere in N.T. only 
of St Paul’s spirit being provoked at the numerous idols in 
Athens (Acts xvii. 16): in LXX frequent of great anger. The 
‘contention’ between Paul and Barnabas (Acts xv. 39) was a 
rapofvapos: see Westcott on Heb. x. 24. 

od AoyiLerat 73 kaxdv. When there is no question that it 
has received an injury, Love ‘doth not register the evil’; 
it stores up no resentment, and bears no malice. Comp. tiv 
kaxiav Tov tAnoiov py doyilerOe év tats Kapdiars tyav (Zech. 
vill, 17). For this sense of ‘reckoning’ see 2 Cor. v. 19; 
Rom. iv. 8; cf. Philem. 18. Neither zon cogitat malum (Vulg.) 
nor zon suspicatur malum (Grot.) does justice to either the 
verb or the article: 76 xaxov is ‘ the evil done to it.’ 


6. of xaipe émi d8ixia. ‘Rejoiceth not over unrighteous- 
ness,’ the wrongdoing committed by others (Rom. i. 32). It 
cannot sympathize with what is evil. Chrys. misses the point 
in saying that Love does not rejoice over those who suffer 
wrong, Tots kax@s mdcxovot. It is quite true that there is no 
Schadenfreude in Love, no gloating over the misfortunes of 
others ; but that is not the meaning here. Love cannot share 
the glee of the successful transgressor. 

ourxaiper S€ TH adnOeia. So far from feeling satisfaction 
at the misdeeds of others, Love ‘rejoices with the Truth.’ 
Here Truth is personified, and Love and Truth rejoice together : 
comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 8; Jas. iii. 14; 1 John v. 6. The truth of 
the Gospel is not meant, but Truth in its widest sense, as 
opposed to déuxéa (2 Thess. ii. 12; Rom. ii. 8), and therefore 
equivalent to Goodness. ‘The change of preposition, from éxié 
to ouv-, is ignored in the AV. on gaudet super iniguitatem, 
congaudet autem veritati (Vulg.). Love sympathizes with all 
that is really good in others. 

The seven negatives would become monotonous if they 
were continued. By giving an affirmative antithesis to the 


XIII. 6-8] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 295 


last of them St Paul prepares the way for a return to positive 
characteristics. 


7. wavta otéyer. The meaning of the verb is somewhat 
uncertain. It occurs only Ecclus. viii. 17 in LXX, of the fool 
who will not be able to conceal the matter, Adyov oréfar: and 
only here, ix. 12, and 1 Thess. ii, 1, 5 in N.T. ‘Covereth,’ 
and so ‘excuseth’ would make sense here, but not such good 
sense as the other meaning of the verb, ‘is proof against,’ and 
so ‘forbeareth, endureth,’ which seems to be the meaning in 
all four places in the N.T. The second meaning springs from 
the first. ‘To cover’ is ‘to protect,’ and ‘to protect’ is ‘to 
keep off’ rain, foes, troubles, etc., and therefore to be proof 
against them or endure them. See Lightfoot on 1 Thess. iii. 1, 
where the Vulg. has om sustinentes, v. 5, non sustinens, and in 
ix. 12, omnia sustinemus, while here it has omnia suffert. The 
root is connected with ¢egere, ‘deck,’ ‘thatch.’ 

mdavta mortever. This does not mean, as Calvin points out, 
that a Christian is to allow himself to be fooled by every 
rogue, or to pretend that he believes that white is black. But 
in doubtful cases he will prefer being too generous in his 
conclusions to suspecting another unjustly. While he is patient 
with (oréye) the mischief which his neighbour undoubtedly 
does, he credits him with good intentions, which he perhaps 
does not possess. 

This characteristic, with the next pair, forms a climax. 
When Love has no evidence, it believes the best. When 
the evidence is adverse, it hopes for the best. And when 
hopes are repeatedly disappointed, it still courageously waits. 
‘The four form a chiasmus, the second being related to the 
third as the first to the last. While oréye refers to present 
trials, taopeve. covers the future also. It is that cheerful and 
loyal fortitude which, having done all without apparent success, 
still stands and endures, whether the ingratitude of friends or 
the persecution of foes. Throughout the Pauline Epistles it 
is assumed that the Christian is likely to be persecuted ; 1 Thess. 
1.6, i. 3, 73 2 Thess. 1. 4,6; Rom. V. 4,-villy 95, =i 12, eta 

One result of all this is closely connected with the subject 
of the preceding and of the following chapter—the well-being 
of the Chiistian body, as a whole consisting of many unequally 
gifted members: praecipuus scopus est quam sit necessaria caritas 
ad conservandam ecclesiae unitatem (Calvin). 


8-18. Having shown the worthlessness of supernatural gifts, 
if love is absent, and the supreme excellence of a character 
in which love is dominant, St Paul now shows that love is 
superior to all the gifts, because they are for this world only, 


296 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIII 8 


whereas love is for both time and eternity. “This: 15, the 
crowning glory of love, that it is imperishable” (Stanley) ; it 
abides until and beyond the supreme crisis of the Last Day. 


8. ‘H dydan olSénote winter. In making this new point 
the nominative is again repeated, and with good effect. And 
the new point is reached without difficulty. From tropéve to 
ov6. wimres is an easy transition. That which withstands all 
assaults and is not crushed by either the shortcomings of 
comrades or the violence of opponents, will stand firm and 
unshaken. In the N.T., wixrew is nearly always literal; but 
comp. Tov vomou puiav Kepaiav TET ELV (Luke XVi. 17). In class. 
Grk., ovdérore is stronger than ovzore; but in late Grk. strong 
forms lose their strength and become the common forms: 
otderore occurs fifteen or sixteen times in the N.T., ov... 
more only 2 Pet.-i. 21; comp. Eph. v. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 5; 
4 Pet. 1 xo. 

From the statement that ‘Love never faileth’ but ‘abideth’ 
after death, has been inferred the doctrine that the saints at 
rest pray for those on earth. Calvin vigorously attacks this 
inference, as if it were harmful to believe in such a result 
of love. The inference is, no doubt, somewhat remote from the 
context. 


The reading rirrec (N* ABC* 17, 47, Nyss. Ambrst. Aug.) is to be 
preferred to éxaimre. (DEF GK LP, Vulg., Tert. Cypr.), which perhaps 
comes from Rom. ix. 6. Chrys. reads éxmlmre, and explains that 
Christians must never hate their persecutors. They hate the evil deeds, 
which are the devil’s work, but not the doers, for they are the work of 
God. But ovdémore wlmrec means more than this, as what follows shows. 


( eire S€ mpopytetar, KatapynOycovrar. St Paul now takes up 
again the comparison between Love and the special gifts. 
Tested by the attribute of durability, Love exceeds all these 
xapicpara, And here the AV. improves on the Greek. The 
varied rendering of xatapyeio@au, ‘fail,’ ‘vanish away,’ ‘be done 
away,’ is more pleasing than the repetition of the same word ; 
and the making the first xarapy. a verbal contradiction of 
ovderore mimret is effective. 

The repeated eire is depreciatory; it suggests indifference 
as to the existence of gifts of which the use was at best 
temporary. ‘But as to prophesyings, if there be any, they 
shall be done away.’ Excepting Luke xiii. 7 and Heb. ii. 14, 
Katapyety, ‘to put out of action,’ is wholly Pauline in the N.T. 
It is found in all four groups, but is specially common in this 
group of the Pauline Epp. In the LXX, only in Ezra. Three 
prominent xapiopara are taken in illustration of the transitory 
character of the gifts: to have gone through all would have 


XIII. 8-11] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 297 


been tedious. And the yAdooa: are dropped in v. 9. Obviously, 
they will be ‘rendered idle.’ Tongues were a rapturous mode 
of addressing God; and no such rapture would be needed 
when the spirit was in His immediate presence. But Tongues 
seem to have ceased first of all the gifts. The plur. rpodpyreiac 
indicates different kinds of inspired preaching; but yvioes 
(x A, etc.) is a corruption to harmonize with the preceding 
plurals. 


9. Again we have a chiasmus: prophesyings, knowledge 
(v. 8), know, prophesy (9). Both will be done away, for it is 
from a part only, and not from the whole, that we get to know 
anything of the truth, and from a part only that we prophesy. 
We cannot know, and therefore cannot preach, the whole 
‘truth, but only fragments. Knowledge and prophecy are useful 
as lamps in the darkness, but they will be useless when the 
eternal Day has dawned; 6 yap péAAwy Bios tovTwv avevders. 
In both clauses ék pépous is emphatic. Bishop Butler has 
. shown that here complete knowledge even of a part is imposs- 
ible, for we cannot have this until we know its full relation 
to the whole; and, in order to do that, we must have full 
knowledge of the whole, which is impossible.* 


10. ‘But when there shall have come that which is com- 
plete, that which is from a part will be done away’; chiasmus 
again. Ubi perventum ad metam fuerit, tunc cessabunt adjumenta 
cursus (Calv.). We might have expected St Paul to put it in 
this way, yet he does not. He does not say, ‘But when we 
shall have come to the perfection of the other world,’ etc. He 
is so full of the thought of the Second Advent, that he represents 
the perfection as coming to us. ‘ When it shall have come’; 
then, but not till then. The Apostle is saying nothing about 
the cessation of yxapicpara in this life: prophesyings and know- 
ledge might always be useful. All that he asserts is, that 
these things will have no use when completeness is revealed ; 
and therefore they are inferior to Love. Luther renders 76 ék 
pepous, das Stiickwerk. 

In order to make the ‘then and not till then’ clearer, K L, Syrr. 
Chrys. and some other witnesses insert réte before 7d é« pépous: om. 


NABD*FGP, Latt. Arm. Aeth. Goth., etc. Chrys. points out that it 
is only the partial, fragmentary knowledge that will be done away. 


11. Illustration suggested by 76 reAcov: it is very inadequate, 
but it will serve. The difference between a virus and a reAetos 


*’Ex uépous is fairly common in both LXX and N.T. Other adverbial 
expressions are dd yuépous, which marks a contrast with the whole less 
clearly than é« mw. (2 Cor. i. 14, ii, 5), dvd pépos (xiv. 27), and xard pépos 
(Heb. ix. 5). 


298 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS { XIII. 11, 12 


is as nothing compared with the difference between the twilight 
of this world and the brightness of the perfect Day, but it will 
help us to understand this. In order to confirm vv. 8-10, the 
Apostle appeals to personal experience. ‘When I was a child, 
I used to talk, think, and reason as a child: now that I am 
become a man, I have done away with the child’s ways.’ RV. 
has ‘felt’ for éfpdvovv, which is no improvement on the ‘ under- 
stood’ of AV. A mental process is meant (xi. 20, Xi. 3, etc.), 
of which éAoyCopny, ‘calculated’ (2 Cor. v. 19, xi. 5, etc.) is a 
development. Loguebar, sapiebam, cogitabam (Vulg.); but ratio- 
cinabar (Beza, Beng.) is better than cogitabam. Comp. umera 
annos tuos, et pudebit eadem velle quae volueras puer (Seneca, 


Ep. 27). 


The antithesis between 7éXetos (ii. 6) and v#meos (iii. 1) is freq. (xiv. 20; 
Eph. iv. 13, 14). The mid. imperf. #unv is not found, except as a doubtful 
reading, in class. Grk., but it is not rare in later writers: Gal. i. 10; Matt. 
xxiii. 30, xxv. 35, 36, 43; Acts xxvii. 37, and perhaps xi. 11. See Veitch, 
p. 200, The perf. xarjpynka indicates a change of state which still con- 
tinues ; the emancipation from childish things took place as a matter of 
course, u/tro, libenter, sine labore (Beng.), and it continues. 

In each case ws vimris follows the verb (N AB 17, Vulg. Aeth.), and 
the dé after dve is an interpolation (om. &* A B D*); the contrast is more 
emphatic without it. 


12, Brémopev yap apt 8.’ éoomrpou ev aiviypart. ‘For we see 
at present by means of a mirror in a riddle.’ The yap confirms 
the preceding illustration ; for as childhood to manhood, so this 
life to the life to come. The argument is @ fortiori. If adults 
have long since abandoned their playthings and primers, how 
much more will the reflected glimpses of truth be abandoned, 
when the whole truth is directly seen. Almost certainly, dv éoo7- 
tpov means ‘dy means of a mirror,’ not ‘through a mirror.’ Ancient 
mirrors were of polished metal, and Corinthian mirrors were 
famous; but the best of them would give an imperfect and 
somewhat distorted reflexion, and Corinthian Christians would 
not possess the best (i. 26). To see a friend’s face in a cheap 
mirror would be very different from looking at the friend. This 
world reflects God so imperfectly as to perplex us ; all that we see 
is év aivéypars. The word occurs nowhere else in the N.T., but 
is freq. in the LXX. Probably Num. xii. 8 is in St Paul’s mind: 
oToua Kara oroua Nadjow adr, év cider Kal ov b¢ aiviyparwv.* 
Other words for ‘mirror’ are évorrpov and xdromrpov. Comp. 


* This passage led to the Rabbinical tradition that Moses had seen God 
through a clean window, but the Prophets through a dirty one (Bachmann, 
ad loc. p- 409 n.). There are two metaphors in Num. xii. 8, which St Paul 
mixes: Bérew év dwviyyare is somewhat incongruous. But to condemn év 


div, as a gloss is a violent expedient. A gloss would have been more 
harmonious with the text. 


XIII. 12, 18] A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE 29 


2 Cor. iii. 18. Tertullian wrongly thinks of a window-pane made 
of horn, which is only semi-transparent; Aer corneum specular. 
But a window with horn or /afis specularis would be diorrpov, not 
ésortpov. See Smith, D. Ant. i. p. 686. Others explain the da 
as meaning that in a mirror one seems to see ¢hrough the surface 
to the reflected objects. 

Tote S€ mpdcwnov Tpds Tpdowrov. ‘But then (when 10 7réAcov 
shall have come) face to face’; mpoowmov 7. mp being an adverb 
after BAEropev. The expression is Hebraistic ; Gen. xxxii. 30: 

comp. zp. kata mp. Deut. xxxiv. Io. 

Our knowledge of divine things in this life cannot be direct: 
all comes through the distorting medium of human thought and | | 
human language, figures, types, symbols, etc. Even those who) 
are illumined by the Spirit can give only a few rays of the truth, 
and those not direct, but reflected. Even the Gospel is a riddle, 
compared with the full light of the life to come. Here our 
knowledge is mediate, the result of inference and instruction ; it 
is partial and confused ; a piecemeal succession of broken lights. 
There it will be immediate, complete, and clear; a connected 
and simultaneous illumination. The imperfection of our know- 
ledge, even of revealed truth, is not sufficiently recognized ; and 
hence the rejection of Christianity by so many thoughtful people. 
Christians often claim to know more than it is possible to know. 
They forget how much of the Bible is symbolical. See Goudge, 
pa 122. 

diptt ywwéoKw éx pepous. In realizing what is true of all of us, 
St Paul returns to his own personal experience ; ‘ At present I 
get to know from a part only, but then I shall know in full even 
as I was known also in full, once for all,’ by God from all eternity. 
Or the aorist may refer to Christ’s knowledge of him at his 
conversion. For érvywoxeyv, which is very frequent in Luke 
(i. 4, Vv. 22, etc.) and o St Paul (Rom. i. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9, etc.), 
see Lightfoot on Col. i. 9, and J. A. Robinson on Eph. i. 17, 
p. 248. It is difficult to believe that here the compound is not 
meant to indicate more complete knowledge than the simple 
verb: but it does not follow from this that the compound always 
does so. In any case, xa6is Kai éereyvicbnv is a bold way of 
expressing the completeness of future illumination; human 
knowledge is to equal (xa6us, “exactly as’) divine. Comp. 
Philo (De Cherub. § 32, p. 159 3) viv ore Copev yrupilopeba padov 
} yvwpilopev. In this verse we have yivwoxw in all three voices. 


D* FG, Vulg. Arm. Goth., Tert. Cypr. omit. ydp, but it is well 
attested (§ A B K L P, Copt.). 


13. vuvi 8€ pever. ‘So then, when all the other gifts have 
been reduced to nothing by the glories of the Return, there 


309 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | XIII. 13 


remain just these three.’ The vuvé is not temporal, but logical, 
and the 4¢ expresses the contrast between the transitory gifts just 
mentioned and those here; ‘But, as you see, there abideth’: 
comp. xii. 18, 20; Heb. ix. 26. The singular pve is not a slip 
in grammar: the three virtues are a triplet distinguished by a 
durability which the brilliant yxapiopara, so coveted by the 
Corinthians, do not possess; for the triplet will survive the 
Second Advent.* In the progress which is possible in the other 
world there will be room for Faith and Hope, but there will be 
no room for Tongues, prophesyings, healings, or miracles. The 
character which is built upon those three survives death and 
abides in eternity. Goodness is far more enduring, because far 
more akin to God, than the greatest capacities for usefulness. 
Even in this world these gifts are not indispensable. One can 
be a good Christian without Tongues or prophesying ; but one 
cannot be a good Christian without Faith, Hope, and Love. 
peiLwy 8€ tovTwy  dydmy. ‘And out of these (partitive 
genitive) Love is greater.’ Mentally, perhaps, the Apostle puts Love, 
about which he has said so much, into one class, and the other 
two virtues into another. But, however we explain the com- 
parative (cf. Mt. xxiii. 11), and the simplest explanation is that 
peyratos had become almost obsolete (J. H. Moulton, Gr. i. 
p- 78), there is no doubt about the meaning; Love is superior to 
the other two. Why is it superior, seeing that all three are 
eternal? Not perhaps because Faith and Hope concern the 
individual, while Love embraces the whole Christian society: sua 
enim cutque fides ac spes prodest; caritas ad alios diffunditur 
(Calv.). Rather, Love is the root of the other two; ‘Love 
believeth all things, hopeth all things.’ We trust those whom 
we love, and we hope for what we love. Again, Faith and Hope 
are purely human; or, at most, angelic; the virtues of creatures. 
Love is Divine. Deus non dicitur fides aut spes absolute, amor 
dicitur (Beng.). 
_ For the triplet comp. 1 Thess. i. 3, v. 5; Gal. v. 5, 6; Col. 
1. 4, 53 Heb. vi. ro-12; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 155 f. Comp. 
also St John’s triplet, Light, Life, and Love. 


_ .” But ‘when a verb occurs in the 3rd person in an introductory manner 
it is often used in the singular number, though the subject may be in the 
plural.” Thus ‘‘ what cares these roarers for the name of king?” Yet, even 
without this inversion, two or more kindred subjects may have a singular verb 
(Mark iv. 41; Matt. v, 18, vi. 19). J. H. Moulton, Gr. i. p. 58; Blass, 
§ 11. 3, § 44. 3. : 


XIV. 1-40] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 301 


XIV. 1-40. THE SUBJECT OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 
CONCLUDED. 


In ch. xii. the human body was given as an _ intsructive 
illustration of a Christian Church. In xiii. it was shown that the 
principle which ought to quicken and regulate every member of 
the Church is love. In xiv. the influence of this principle is 
traced in the selection of the gifts that are most useful to the 
whole body, and also in the manner of employing them. 
_ Following after love does not impede the desire for special gifts, 
but it regulates it. The love which seeks not its own advantage 
must prefer a gift which benefits all to one which is a delight and 
a help to no one but its possessor. Not that the latter is to be 
despised ; God does not bestow worthless gifts: but it is possible 
to mar any gift by misusing it. 

The chapter has four divisions: (1) Prophesying or inspired 
preaching is superior to Tongues, both in reference to believers 
and to unbelievers, 1-25. (2) Regulations for the orderly 
exercise of these two gifts in Christian assemblies, 26-33. (3) 
Regulations respecting women, 34-36. (4) Conclusion of the 
subject, 37—40. 

In the first and main portion of the chapter the superiority 
of inspired preaching to Tongues is stated at once (2-5); and 
this is supported by two series of arguments (6-11 and 14-19) 
connected with two exhortations (12, 13). The whole chapter 
shows that ‘prophesying’ is not the gift of prediction, but that 
of preaching; and that ‘Tongues’ are not foreign languages, 
but a mode of utterance different from all human language. 

The main result of the chapter is that, just as it is love which 
gives value to character and conduct (xiii.), so it is love which 
teaches the true value and proper use of the charismata. See 
Zahn, Jutrod. to N.T. 1. p. 280. 


You are right in desiring these supernatural gifts, but 
take care that you do so from the right motive; and the 
right motive ts love. Those gifts which benefit others are to 
be preferred to those which glorify ourselves ; hence inspired 
preaching is more to be desired than Tongues. In the 
congregation, Tongues (unless interpreted at once) are a 
hindrance to worship. Even the experienced cannot join in 


302 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XIV. 1-40 


~ 


devotions which they do not understand, while the inex- 
perienced or the unbelievers, if any be present, are lost in 
contemptuous amazement. But inspired preaching ts a great 
help to all who hear it, whether believing or unbelieving. 

Unless an interpreter is present, Tongues should be 
exercised in private. In public worship, all who are inspired 
to preach may do so in turn, and the whole Church, including 
themselves, will be the gainer. 

This does not apply to women. So far from preaching, 
they ought not even to ask questions. 

In all matters of public worship decorum and order must 
be studied. 


1 What you have to do, therefore, is persistently to strive to 
make this love your own, while you continue to long to have the 
gifts of the Spirit, and especially to be inspired to preach. 2 For 
he who speaks in a Tongue is speaking, not to men, but to God, 
for no man can understand one who in a state of rapture is 
speaking mystic secrets. %It is otherwise with one who is 
inspired to preach: he does speak to men, and to good purpose, 
—words of faith to build them up, words of hope to quicken 
them, words of love to hearten and console. * Not that Tongues 
are useless; one who exercises this gift may build up his own 
spiritual life by it: but the inspired preacher builds up the 
spiritual life of the Church. 5 Now I could wish that you should 
all have the gift of Tongues ; but I would greatly prefer that you 
should be inspired to preach, this being far more important, 
unless, of course, the Tongues should at once be interpreted, 
so that the Church may thereby receive spiritual advantage. 
® But, Brethren, seeing that Tongues without explanation are 
useless, suppose that, when next I visit you, I speak with 
Tongues, what good shall I do you,.if I shall fail to explain 
to you some glimpse of the unseen or some knowledge of truth, 
the one to inspire you, the other to instruct you? 7 Why, there 
are instruments which, although lifeless, make a sound,—a pipe, 
for instance, or a harp; yet if they make no distinction in the 
notes, how is one to know the tune which the pipe or the harp is 
playing? A trumpet-blast is a still stronger instance: if that 
gives an uncertain sound, who will get ready for battle? It is 
just the same with you: if with your tongue you do not make 


XIV. 1-40] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 303 


intelligible speech, how is one to know what you are saying ? 
For you might as well be saying it to the winds. 1! Well, then, 
if I show that I do not understand the meaning of the language 
used, the person who speaks to me will conclude that I talk 
gibberish, just as from my point of view he is talking gibberish 
to me; and we both wish that we could talk to some advantage. 
12Tt is just the same with you: seeing that you are so enthusiastic 
for inspirations, let it be for the spiritual advantage of the Church 
that you seek to abound in them. ! Therefore he that speaks in 
a Tongue should pray that he may be able to interpret what he 
utters. |For if Iam praying in a Tongue, it is quite true that 
my spirit is praying, but my understanding is doing no good. 
18 What does that imply? I must go on praying with the spirit, 
that, of course, for my own sake: but for the sake of others I 
must pray with the understanding also. I must sing with the 
spirit, but I must sing with the understanding also. 1 Else, 
suppose that you are blessing God in ecstasy, how is he who 
has no experience of such things to say the Amen at your giving 
of thanks, seeing that he does not know what you are saying? 
17 For although you are giving thanks beautifully, yet the other is 
getting no spiritual advantage. 18I thank God I have the gift 
of Tongues in a higher degree than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, 
in public worship I would rather speak five words with my under- 
standing, and thereby give others also some solid instruction, 
than thousands and thousands of words in an ecstatic Tongue. 

20 My brethren, do not behave as if you were still children in 
mind: and it is childish to prefer what glitters to what does 
good. Of course, in jealousy and ill-will be children, nay, be 
very babes; but in mind behave as full-grown men. 2!In the 
great Prophet of the old Covenant it stands written that, because 
Israel would not obey God’s word spoken in language which 
they could understand, thay would be punished in being conquered 
by Assyrians whose language they could not understand, and 
that even this sign would fail to teach them obedience. 
22 This shows us that unintelligible Tongues are a sign, not of 
course to those who believe, but to those who fail to do so; 
while inspired preaching is for the benefit, not of those who do 
not believe, but of those who do. ** Consequently, if, when you 
all meet together in one place for public worship, you one after 
another do nothing but speak with Tongues, and there come in 


304 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIV. 1-40 


those who have no experience of such things,—and still more so 
if unbelievers come in,—will they not say that you must be mad? 


24 Whereas, if one after another you utter inspired teaching, and 
there comes in an unbeliever,—and still more so if an inexperi- 


enced brother comes in,—by preacher after preacher he is con- 
vinced of his sinfulness, his heart is searched, “its secret evils 
are revealed to him, and the blessed result will be that he 
humbles himself before God and man, and from that moment 
proclaims that, little as he thought so till then, it is God who is 
with you. 

26 How then does the matter stand, Brethren? Whenever 
you meet together for worship, each of you is ready to manifest 
some gift,—to sing a song of praise, to give instruction, to reveal 
a truth, to utter a Tongue, or to interpret one. By all means 
exercise the gifts with which you have been endowed, always 
provided that they are exercised to build up the spiritual life of 
others and not to glorify yourselves. *7 If those who speak with 
Tongues are preferred, let only two, or at most three, speak in 
any One meeting, and one at a time, and let one interpreter serve 
for each. * But if no interpreter be present, let whoever has 
this gift be silent in public worship, and exercise it in private 
between himself and God. And of those who are inspired to 
preach, let two or three speak in each meeting, and let the rest of 
them exercise the gift of discernment as to what is being spoken. 
But if a revelation be made to one of those who thus sit 
listening, let the preacher give place to him. 4%! For he cam stop 
and be silent, and in this way it will be in the power of all of 
the inspired to preach one by one, so that all, whether inspired 
or not, may learn something and be quickened. % Yes, he can 
stop: an inspired man’s spirit is under the inspired man’s control, 
for the God who inspires him is a God, not of turbutence, but of 
peace. ‘This holds good of all the assemblies of His people. 

** When I say that all in turn may preach, I do not include 
your wives. They must keep silence in the assemblies. Utter- 
ance, whether in a Tongue or in preaching, is not allowed to 
them, for this would violate the rule of subjection which has been 
imposed upon them since the Fall. % Even their asking questions, 
which might seem to be compatible with subjection, cannot be 
allowed in the assemblies. Let them ask their own husbands at 
home, and the husbands can ask in the assembly. It is shameful 


XIV. 1, 2] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 305 


for a woman to speak there. %° Perhaps you think that you have 
the right to do as you please in such matters. What? are you 
the Mother-Church, or the only Church, that you make such 
claims ? 

37Tf any one claims to be inspired as a preacher or in any 
other way, let him give evidence of his inspiration by recognizing 
that what I am writing to you is inspired; it is the Lord’s 
command. ** But if any one fails to recognize this, I have no 
more to say. God deals with such. *8So then, my Brethren, 
the sum of the whole discussion is this. Long earnestly to be 
inspired to preach, and if any one has the gift of Tongues, do 
not forbid him to use it. But let everything be done in accord- 
ance with natural feelings of propriety as well as established 
rule. 


1. Atdkete thy dydtyy, {ydodre S€ TA mveupatikd. This verse 
looks back to xi. 31, and sums up the two preceding chapters. 
The Corinthians are to follow with persistence (Rom. ix. 30, 31, 
xiv. 19; 1 Thess. v. 15, etc.) ‘the more excellent way,’ and to 
desire with intensity (xii. 31, xiv. 39; 2 Cor. xi. 2; Gal. iv. 17) 
supernatural gifts ; but (more than all the rest) that they may be 
inspired to preach. The iva is definitive, not telic. For the other 
meaning of {jAody, ‘boil with envy and hatred,’ comp. xiii. 4. 
Love is a grace, which all Christians by earnest endeavour can 
attain. Prophesying, Tongues, etc. are gifts, which may be 
eagerly desired, but which no amount of effort can secure. 
Those alone receive them to whom they are given (xii. 11). The 
Apostle assures them that his praise of love does not mean that 
the gifts are to be despised. But no man is made morally the 
better by a gift, for character depends upon personal effort. Vet 
the gifts may be instruments of personal improvement, as well as 
of service to others, although the latter is of higher importance: 
hence paddov de iva zpopytednte. For fyAodre see Mayor on 
Jas.-iv.. 2, p. §28.* 


2. ‘For he who speaketh in a Tongue, not to men doth he 
speak, but to God, for no man heareth him (to any purpose). 
This meaning of dxovew comes out clearly in comparing Acts 
ix. 7 and xxii. 9g. In the one place the men hear the voice; in 
the other they did not hear the voice of Him who was speaking 
to Saul, ze. they heard a sound but did not hear it as words 


* Magna distantia est inter res temporales et spiritales: temporales enim, 
cum non habentur, mullum desiderantur ; si vero habeantur, fastidiunt atque 
vilescunt: spiritales autem, cum non habentur, minus desiderantur ; cum vero 
habentur, magts magisque destderium in nobts accendunt (Atto of Vercelli). 


20 


306 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIV. 2,3 


addressed to any one. Also in the story cf Babel; Suyxéwpev 
exe abtav tTHy yAdooar, iva py adxovowow Exactos THY pwviy TOU 
mAnotov (Gen. xi. 7; comp. xlii. 23). Verse after verse shows 
that speaking in foreign languages cannot be meant. Tongues 
were used in communing with God, and of course this was good 
for those who did so (zv. 4). ‘Tongues were a sort of spiritual 
soliloquy addressed partly to self, partly to Heaven. Compare 
the proverb, Sibi canit et Musis It is equally clear that ovdeis 
dxove. does not mean that Tongues were inaudible, or that no 
one listened to them, but that no one found them intelligible. 
One might as well have heard nothing. 

mvetpatt 8€ Aadet puotmpia. ‘As it is in the spirit that he 
speaketh what are in effect mysteries.’ Explanatory use of 6e; 
not uncommon after a negative, but in wv. 4 without a negative. 
‘In the spirit,’ but not ‘with the understanding’ (v. 14), and 
therefore unintelligible to others. Mvorypioy in the N.T. com- 
monly means ‘truth about God, once hidden, but now revealed.’ 
In this sense it is very common in St Paul: see Lightfoot on 
Col. i. 26 and Swete on Mark iv. 11; Beet on 1 Cor. iil. 4, 
p. 40. Mysteries must be revealed to be profitable; but in the 
case of Tongues without an interpreter there was no revelation, 
and therefore no advantage to the hearers. See Hatch, Zssays 
in Bibl. Grk. pp. 57f. 


3. 6 8€ mpopytedwy. ‘Whereas he who exerciseth the gift of 
prophesying does speak to men, what is in effect edification and 
exhortation and consolation.’ With Aadet otxodouny comp. xpia 
éoOier and rovro pov éori To cdma (xi. 24, 29): in each case ‘ what 
is in effect’ is the meaning. The metaphorical sense of oixodopuy, 
‘building up the spiritual life,’ is peculiar to St Paul in the N.T., 
in Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., and Eph.: elsewhere (Matt. xxiv. 1; 
Mark xiii. 1, 2) of actual buildings or edifices. TlapaxAnots, ‘a 
calling near,’ is sometimes ‘supplication’ (2 Cor. viii. 4), 
‘exhortation’ (Phil. ii. 1), ‘consolation’ (2 Cor. i. 4-7) or a 
combination of the last two, ‘encouragement’ (Heb. vi. 18, 
xii. 5). ‘Exhortation’ or ‘encouragement’ is right here. ‘Con- 
solation’ or ‘comfort’ must be reserved for zapapv6ia, which 
occurs nowhere else in the N.T.; in the LXX, Wisd. xix. 12. 
But in Phil. ii. 1 we have zapapv@iov coupled with zapaxAynors, 
and in 1 Thess. ii. 11 we have zapaxadodvtes kal rapapvOovjpevot. 
Prophesying was the power of seeing and making known the 
nature and will of God, a gift of insight into truth and of power 
in imparting it, and hence a capacity for building up men’s 
characters, quickening their wills, and encouraging their spirits. 
The three are co-ordinate: not build up by quickening and 
encouraging, nor build up and quicken in order to encourage, 


XIV. 3-5] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 307 


Compare Barnabas = ‘son of prophecy’ = vids tapaxAnoews (Acts 
iv. 36). Exhortatio tollit tarditatem, adhortatio timiditatem. See 
W. E. Chadwick, Zhe Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, ch. ix. ; 
Weinel, S¢ Paul, 113 f. 


4. 56 daddy yAdooy EauTdv oikodonet. By communing with 
God in supernatural language the man who spoke in a Tongue 
built up himself. But, as Chrysostom says, What a difference 
between one person and the Church! Although there is no 
tiv before éxxAnoiay, ‘the Church’ is nearer the meaning than 
‘a Church’ or ‘a congregation’; yet either of the latter is ad- 
missible. See Alford and Ellicott, ad Joc. But there is no 
sarcasm ; se ipsum aedificat, ut ipse quidem putat,; sibi placet. 
Revera autem neminem aedificat. 


In both v. 2 and v. 4, D E with Arm. and other authorities have yAdo- 
cas for yAwoon. Some (AE KL) insert 7@ before O€@ in v. 2, but here 
none insert T7v before éxxAnoiav. 


5. O€d\w S€ Tavtas Spas Aadeiv yAdooats, paddov 8é tva mpodn- 
teunte. The change from the infinitive to wa is perhaps meant 
to make the wish more intense ; but this is sufficiently expressed 
by the padXAov. See J. H. Moulton, Gv. p. 208. Nowhere else 
does St Paul use 6€Aw iva, but it is not rare (Matt. vii. 12; Mark 
vi. 25, ix. 30; Luke vi. 31; John xvii. 24): in such cases the 
telic force is lost, and the wa gives the object of the wish. 
‘Now I wish that all of you might speak with Tongues, yet I 
wish still more that ye should prophesy ; as (ée as in v. 2) greater 
is he,’ etc. The ‘for’ of AV. is a little too pronounced, but is 
defensible, even without ydp for d€: see below. The Corinthians 
are exhorted xe, praepostero zelo, quod praecipium est minoribus 
postponant (Calv.). As M. Aurelius (viii. 59) says, “ Men are 
made for one another.” As for the unsatisfactory ones, “ either 
teach them better or put up with them.” 

The apodosis (r/ ipas dpeArjow ;) is placed between two pro- 
tases, which are co-ordinate, the second, on the negative side, 
being complementary to the first, on the positive side; ‘If I 
come speaking with Tongues, instead of speaking either in the 
way of revelation,’ etc. 

€xTds Ei pt) Steppnvevyn. Pleonastic combination of éxrds ei and 
ei py: ‘with this exception, unless he interpret’; comp. xv. 2; 
1 Tim. v. 19. The man who spoke in a Tongue might also have 
the gift of interpreting Tongues, and sz accedat interpretatio, jam 
erit prophetia (Caly.). The d:a- in dcepynvevew may indicate either 
‘being a go-between’ or ‘ thoroughness.’ One who interprets his 
own words intervenes between unintelligible utterance and the 
hearers: comp. 13, 27, xii. 30. 


308 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIV. 5-7 


pelfwv dé (& ABP, Copt.) is to be preferred to melfwv yap (D F K L, 
Latt. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.), W7sz forte interpretetur (Vulg.), ‘unless possibly 
he should interpret,’ is not exact: this would require é4v. Omit forte: the 
el intimates that his interpreting decides the point. It would be known 
that he possessed the gift of interpretation. On éxrés el wh see Deissmann, 
Bible Studies, p. 118, and on ei with the subjunctive see J. H. Moulton, 
Gr. i. p. 187, and Ellicott on 1 Cor. ix. 11, where some good texts have 
Gepicwpev. This is the only sure instance in the N.T., and it means that 
his subsequent interpretation is regarded as quite.possible. 


6. The first of a series of three arguments, drawn from their 
experience of him as a teacher. They are hoping to see him 
again. What good would he do then, if all that they got from 
him was ecstatic language, in which he excelled, but which they 
would not understand. ‘To do them good he must speak in- 
telligible language, of which he gives four examples in pairs that 
correspond: revelation is imparted by inspired preaching, and 
knowledge by doctrine; 7@.e. droxdAvyus and yvdous are the 
internal gifts of which zpodpyrefa and édayy are the external 
manifestation.* ‘The év expresses the form in which the AaAciy 
takes place. Dionysius of Alexandria seems to have had this 
passage in his mind in famous criticism of the Johannine 
re (Eus. AZ. vu. xxv. 26). 

‘But, as it is (seeing that without interpretation there can 
be no general edification), if I should come unto you (xvi. 3) 
speaking in Tongues, what shall I profit you (Gal. v. 2)? What 
shall I profit you, unless I should speak to you either in the way 
of revelation?’ etc. See the paraphrase above. 


vov (§ AB D* FG P) rather than yvuvi(E KL). The viv is logical, as 
in v. II, vii. 14, xii. 18, 20, and as vuvi in xiii. 13, not temporal; and in 
the construction of the verse ri buds Ww. is virtually repeated. ‘Teaching,’ 
the act of giving instruction,’ is better than ‘doctrine’ (AV.) for d:dax7% : 
‘doctrine’ would be didacxadia (Eph. iv. 14; Col. ii, 22; 1 Tim. i. 10, 
etc.). But the distinction is not always observed. 


7. Second argument, from the sounds of inanimate instru- 
ments. What use would they be, if the notes were indistinguish- 
able? The atdAds (here only in N.T.) and x:Odpa (Rev. xiv. 2) 
are given as representatives of all wind and stringed instruments. 
They were the commonest in use at banquets, funerals, and 
religious ceremonies. The music must be different, if it is to 
guide people to be joyous, or sorrowful, or devout. Soulless 
instruments can be made to speak a language, but not if all the 
notes are alike. 

‘Yet things without life giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, 
if they should give no distinction to the sounds, how shall be 

* Thus Origen says, rpopyrela éorly 7 Sia Adyou T&v dpavdy onuavTiKH 


yao. didaxh éoriv 6 eis rods woddovs Siaveuduevos Sidacxadixds Adyos (JTS. 
x. 37, p- 36). See Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, pp. 200f. 


XIV. 7-9] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 309 


known what is piped and what is harped?’ AV. has ‘sound’ 
for both dwvy and POdyyos, and both AV. and RV. ignore the 
repetition of the ro. Except for Rom. x. 18, @dyyos might 
be translated ‘notes.’ Perhaps, as in Gal. iii. 15, the dws is 
attracted out of its place, and the sentence is meant to run— 
‘Inanimate things, although giving a voice, yet, unless,’ etc. 
“Ayuxos occurs Wisd. xiii. 17, xiv. 29, but nowhere else in N.T. 


In Judith xiv. 9 we have édwkev @wvjv, and in Wisd. xix. 18, Womep év 
Yarrnply Pbdyyor Tod puOuod To bvoua diaddAdocovew. For roils POdyyos 
(SADEKLP, Vulg.), B, de Arm., Ambrst. have $@éyyou, and for 6g 
(SN ABD*), EF LP have 6g. See Matt. xxiv. 31; Rev. xiv. 2, xviii. 22 
for pwr}, of musical sound ; and Rom. iii. 22, x. 12 for dtasroAy as meaning 
‘distinction’ and not ‘interval’ (didernua). But in music the difference of 
meaning is not great. 


8. Another and stronger illustration. Of all musical sounds 
the military trumpet is the most potent, and far clearer than pipe 
or lyre. If sound is to be a signal, it must differ from other 
sounds. 

‘For if a trumpet also should give an uncertain voice, who 
will make ready for battle?’* The context makes ‘battle’ more 
probable than ‘war.’ In Homer and Hesiod the meaning of 
‘battle’ is commonest (/Z/. vii. 174 of a duel), in class, Grk. that 
on wan “Ch Num x9; Jer 1. 4o7 (Ezek ya. 25) ine the 
Synoptists, ‘war’ is the better translation. In Jas. iv. 1 réAenou- 
kai paxac means bitter quarrels between individuals. Compare 
Clem. Rom. Cov. 46. On military signals with trumpets see 
smith, ict. An. ‘Exercitus,’ i. p. 801; * Tuba,’ i: p, gor. 
For adyXos see the unmarked graves, ra pynueta ta ddyAa (Luke 
xi. 44): the word is found nowhere else in N.T. and is rare in 
LXX. Here, adyAov oad. pov. is the right order, and also the 
most effective. 


9. If the military trumpet is more potent than pipe or lyre, 
still more expressive is the human tongue; but that also can 
produce sounds which convey no meaning. 

‘So also ye, unless by means of the tongue ye give speech 
that is distinct, how shall it be known what is spoken?’ The 
tongue here means the organ of speech, not the ecstatic Tongue, 
which never gave evonpov Adyov, but rather what was donpov, 
excepting to one who had the gift of interpretation. Evonos 
(here only, but classical) means ‘ well-marked,’ ‘definite,’ ‘ signifi- 
cant.’ Origen suggests that this text intimates that the obscure 


* Here ‘make ready’ or ‘make preparations’ is better than ‘ prepare 
himself.’ The intransitive use of the middle is older and more common than 
the reflexive. Undoubted instances of the reflexive are rare in the N.T., 
J. H. Moulton, Gr p. 156. The xal may be ‘even’; ‘For if even a 
trumpet.’ 


310 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | XIV. 9-11 


portions of Scripture, such as the account of the sacrifices in 
Leviticus and of the Tabernacle in Exodus, ought not to be read 
in public worship, unless some one explains their meaning. 

éoeade yap eis d€pa Aadodvres. ‘For ye will be speaking into 
the air’—to the winds. The periphrastic tense indicates the 
lasting condition to which the unintelligible speaker is reduced. 
Compare dépa dépwy, ix. 26; also Wisd. ix. 11, 12: except in 
Wisd., ap is rare inthe LXX.* Zw fac ne ventis verba profundam 
(Lucr. iv. 932). 


10. Third argument, from the sounds of human language. 
Speech is useless to the hearer, unless he understands it. 
TooadTa, €i TUXOL, yevn Pwvdvy. . . Kal oddev adwrov. ‘There 
are, it may be, so many kinds of voices (Gen. xi. 1, 7) in the 
world, and no kind (of course) is voiceless’ (xii. 2; Acts viii. 32). 
But here dgwvos does not mean ‘dumb’ but, what may be worse, 
‘unintelligible.’ Voiceless voice, ze. meaningless sound, had 
better be inaudible ; it is mere distracting noise. This was just 
the case with Tongues in a congregation without an interpreter. 
Wetstein gives many examples of «i rvyou, ‘if it so happens,’ or 
‘I dare say.’ It implies that the number is large, but that the 
exact number does not matter: ‘There are, I dare say, ever so 
many kinds.’ For év xécpw without the article, ‘in existence,’ 
comp. viii. 4; 2 Cor. v.19., Probably yévos is to be understood 
with ovdév: to say that nothing is without a voice of some kind 
would hardly be true. But the Vulg. takes it so; wzhil sine voce 
est; nihil horum mutum (Calv.) ; nihil est mutum (Beza); which 
moreover destroys the oxymoron in q¢wv7) addwvos: comp. xapus 
dxapis, Bios aB.os or aBiwtos, ydpos ayapos, wAotTos azAovtos. 
Nullum genus vocum vocis expers is better. Speech without 
meaning is a contradiction in terms. 
No doubt és7lv (K L, Chrys. Thdrt.) is a grammatical correction of 
eloly (N ABDEFGP); but the plural is deliberate, to emphasize the 
number of different kinds. A few authorities insert r@ before cécuw, a’rdv 


after oddév, and éoriy after &pwvorv: in all cases §* A B P with other wit- 
nesses omit. 


11. All kinds of languages met at commercial Corinth with 
its harbours on two seas, and difference of language was a 
frequent barrier to common action. Moreover, it was well 
known how exasperating it could be for two intelligent persons 
to be unintelligible to one another. Yet the Corinthians were 


* The rare compounds, depoSarety and depouerpet do not illustrate this 
expression ; they suggest vagueness rather than futility. 

t év odpayg, év ok, év mode, €v ExxAnola, éwi yijs are similar phrases: 
in such cases the idea is definite enough without the article. There was a 
tendency, apparent in the papyri, to drop the article after a preposition. 
J. H. Moulton, Gr. p. 82, and on ei réxa, p. 196. 


XIV, 11-13] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 311 


introducing these barriers and provocations into Christian wor- 
ship, and all for the sake of display ! 

dv ovv ph €i80 . . . ev esol BdpBapos. ‘Unless, therefore, I 
know the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him who speaks to 
me a barbarian, and he who speaks will in my estimation be a 
barbarian.’ The second result is more obvious than the first ; 
but the Apostle assumes that the foreigner sees quite plainly that 
his words are not understood. Comp. Rom. i. 14; Col. iii. r1 ; 
Acts xxviil. 2, 4. BapBapos, like ‘gibberish,’ is probably meant 
to imitate unintelligible sounds. AV., with DE FG, Latt. Syrr. 
Copt. Arm., Chrys., omits the ev before éuoé: ‘unto me.’ Com- 
pare Hdt. ii. 158; Ovid, Z7is¢. v. 10, 11; and see J. H. Moulton, 
p. 103. 

12. ottws kai Sets... iva mepiacednte. ‘So also ye (z. 9), 
seeing that ye are earnestly desirous of spiritual manifestations 
(enthusiastic after spirits), let it be for the edifying of the Church 
that ye seek to abound.’ The Corinthians were eager for these 
brilliant charismata. St Paul does not blame them, but charges 
them to have a right motive for desiring them, viz. the building 
up of others rather than their own gratification. Origen says 
that the way to increase one’s charismata is to use them for the 
good of others: otherwise the gifts may wane. Cf. Philo, De 
Decalogo, 105. For ovrws see vi. 5, viii. 12; for CyAwrai, Gal. 
i. 14; Acts xxil. 3; for mvevyarwy in this sense, xii. 10; for the 
inversion of order for the sake of emphasis, ili. 5, vii. 17; Rom. 
xii. 3. Some would translate ; ‘For the edifying of the Church 
seek (them), that ye may abound (in them).’ This is not so 
probable as the other. There is perhaps a touch of irony or of 
rebuke in ‘seeing that ye are so eager for.’ This exhortation 
closes the first series of arguments. The next verse (13) is a 
corollary from zpos tiv oixodopyv . . ., and leads to the second 
series. 


13. Aro 6 Aakav yioon mpocevxéoOw iva Sreppnvedy. ‘It 
follows from this (xi. 3; Gal. iv. 31, etc.) that he who speaks 
in a Tongue should pray that he may interpret,’ ze. have the 
gift of interpretation also. This prayer might precede or follow 
the ecstatic speech. The verse does not necessarily mean ‘ Let 
him in his ecstasy pray that he may be allowed to interpret’; 
still less, ‘Let him in his ecstasy pray in such a way as to make 
his utterance intelligible.’ It was characteristic of glossolalia 
that the speaker could not make his speech intelligible; and 
apparently he had no control over the sounds that he uttered, 
although he could abstain from uttering them. It does not 
follow that, because we have zpocevxwpyar yAwoon in v. 14, there- 
fore yAdéooy is to be understood with zpocevyéoOw in v 13: 


312 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIv. 13-16 


yAdoon is indispensable in v. 14. Acd is found in all groups of 
the Pauline Epp., except the Pastorals, and is specially frequent 
in this group. 


14, First argument of the second series. The gift of Tongues 
is inferior to other gifts, because in it the reason has no control; 
and the Apostle has misgivings about devotions in which the 
reason has no part (v. 19). Strange that Corinthians should 
need to be told that intellect is not to be ignored, but ought to 
be brought to full development (v. 20). ‘“‘ Feeling is a precious 
giff; but when men parade it and give way to it, it is weakness 
instead of strength” (F. W. Robertson, Corinthians, p. 228). 

éav yap mpocedxwpar yddoon. ‘For if ever I pray in a 
Tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful,’ 
because it does no good to others. There is no oixodoyy for 
the congregation, because what he utters is not framed by his 
intellect to convey any meaning to them. Hilary says that 
Latins sometimes sang Greek songs for the mere pleasure of 
the sound, without understanding what they sang. Note that 
it is the zvetpa, not the yy, that prays; and prayer here 
includes praise and thanksgiving. The preacher’s fruit is to be 
sought in the hearer’s progress, not in his own delight or in their 
admiration ot his gift. Aristotle (Z7¢h. JVic. Iv. ili. 33) speaks of 
7a kaXa Kal axapra, objects of beauty which do not pay, though 
they delight all and dignify the possessor. For vots see Luke 
xxiv. 45; Rev. xiii. 18, xvii. 9. 


15. ti odv éoritv; ‘What then is the outcome?’ How do we 
stand after this discussion (v. 26; Rom. iii. 9, vi. 15; Acts 
xxi. 22) as to the conditions of being of use to others in one’s 
devotions? Unreasoning emotionalism will not do. ‘I will 
pray with the spirit (that of course); but I will pray with the 
understanding also,’ so as to be able to edify others: ‘I will 
sing praise with the spirit, but,’ etc. There is no thought here 
of liturgical music; it is the individual spontaneously using a 
special gift in the congregation ; “impromptu utterance of sacred 
song” (Beet). Comp. Eph. v. 19; Col. iit. 16: WaAdw originally 
meant playing on a stringed instrument; then singing to the 
harp or lyre; finally, singing without accompaniment, especi- 
ally singing praise—ro xvpiw, Td dvopate adrod x.t.A. It is 
possible that the ecstatic utterances sometimes took the form 
of an inarticulate chant, songs without intelligible words or 
definite melody. Compare Wadare ovverds (Ps. xlvii. 8). 


16. Second argument. Tongues are a stumbling-block to 
the ungifted, for ineffable emotion is a hindrance rather than a 
help to those who witness it. 


XIV. 16] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 313 


‘For else, if ever thou art blessing God in spirit,’ ze. thanking 
Him in ecstasy, ‘how shall he who occupies the place of the 
ungifted say the (usual) Amen after thy giving of thanks, seeing 
that he knows not what thou art saying?’ You may be engaged 
in the highest kind of devotion, nodzlissima species orandi (Beng.), 
but it conveys no meaning to those who cannot interpret the 
language used. It is obvious that evyapuoria here cannot mean 
the Eucharist. The minister at that service would not speak in 
a Tongue. Nor is it probable that in ‘the Amen’ there is in- 
direct reference to the Eucharist. The use of the responsive 
Amen at the end of the prayers, and especially of the reader’s 
doxology, had long been common in the synagogues (Neh. v. 13, 
vill. 6; 1 Chron. xvi. 36; Ps. cvi. 48), and had thence passed 
into the Christian Church, where it at once became a prominent 
feature (Justin M. Afol. 1. 65; Tertul. De Spectac. 25 ; Cornelius 
Bishop of Rome in Eus. HZ. vi. xliii. 19; Chrys. ad /oc.), 
especially at the end of the consecration prayer in the Eucharist. 
So common did it become at the end of every prayer in Christian 
worship that the Jews, it is said, began to abandon it; Jerome 
says that it was like thunder. The Rabbis gave similar instruc- 
tions about the iduirys: the language should be such as he can 
understand. Hastings, DCG. 1. p. 51, DBZ. i. p. 80; Dalman, 
The Words of Jesus, p. 226. In the LXX the Hebrew word is 
retained in the responsive passages (Neh. v. 13, viii. 6; 1 Chron. 
xvi. 36; 1 Esdr. ix. 47; Tobit viii. 8), but in the Psalms and 
elsewhere it is translated yévorro. The Vulgate has fiat in the 
Psalms, elsewhere ‘Amen.’ It is evident from this passage that 
a great deal of the service was extempore, and both the Didache 
and Justin show that this continued for some time. Apparently 
the prophets had more freedom in this respect than others. 
For émi see Phil. i. 3; 1 Thess. iii. 7. 

The precise meaning of both roros and idurys is uncertain. 
But it is unlikely that at this early period, when the Christians 
in each town met for common worship in private houses, there 
was a portion of the room set apart for the idura., or that these 
were laymen as distinct from officials. No clearly marked dis- 
tinctions had as yet been drawn between ministers and laity. 
In Acts iv. 13 (see Knowling’s note), ‘without special training,’ 
‘uneducated,’ seems to be the meaning, and in 2 Cor. xi. 6 the 
Apostle probably means that he was not a trained orator or 
professional speaker. Here ‘unlearned’ or ‘inexperienced’ may 
be the meaning; but RV. margin is probably right; ‘without 
gifts,’ ze. having no gift of Tongues, or of interpretation, or of 
prophesying. It would therefore be somewhat like dptyros, 
‘uninitiated.’ Tyndale and Coverdale have ‘laye people’ in 
Acts and ‘unlearned’ here. In any case the Apostle’s argument 


314 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIv. 16-18 


is clear. It would be drovov that one who has a place in public 
worship should be prevented from joining in it, owing to the 
language used being unintelligible. Tongues were not given to 
encourage vanity, or to hinder the devotions of others. Wetstein 
gives abundant illustrations of the different meanings of iduirqs : 
see also Suicer on both iduitys and *Apyv. Conybeare and 
Howson explain idwrys as one “who takes no part in the 
particular matter in hand”—an outsider, uadethetligt. 

evAoyis (NA BDE P) rather than ev’Aoyjoys (F GK L, Latt. denedix- 


erts), and mvevuare (N* AF G17, Vulg. Syrr. Arm.) rather than év mvev- 
part (BD) or r@ mv. (K L, Chrys.), or év 7@ mv. (P). 


17. od pév yap kahds edxapiorets. The ov is emphatic, evxap- 
toteis iS Synonymous with the preceding evAoy7s, and there is 
perhaps a touch of irony in the xaAds: ‘Thy beautiful thanks- 
giving is quite lost on the poor idwirys.? Or the xadds may 
mean, ‘Do not think that I consider Tongues to be worthless ; 
God’s gifts, if rightly used, are always valuable to the receiver ; 
éut Tongues are no good to the ungifted hearer.’ Note adAd 
instead of d¢ after pev, intensifying the contrast; ‘but none 
the less.’ 


18. Third argument, from his own case; comp. z. 6, iv. 6, 
ix. If., xiii, 1-3. He, if any one, has a right to speak with 
Tongues in the congregation, yet he will not. He knows what 
he is talking about; he is not depreciating a gift of which he 
has no experience. In xiii. 1 he spoke hypothetically of pos- 
sessing this gift. Here he says plainly that he possesses it with 
greater intensity than all of them, which perhaps implies that 
the fact was not generally known, because he exercised the gift 
in private. Here we have strong evidence that Tongues are 
not foreign languages. He does not say that he speaks ‘in 
more tongues’; and he could use his understanding in speaking 
Latin or Syriac just as much as in speaking Greek. In saying 
that the man who was most richly endowed with this gift was 
one who abstained from using it in public, he perhaps hints 
that those who were not greatly endowed were the people who 
gave themselves most airs about it. 

edxapioTd 16 GeG. This cannot refer to the Eucharist, and 
to some extent confirms the view that vv. 16, 17 do not. 

Tdévtwv spay paddov. The emphatic position of mdvTwv 
perhaps means ‘more than all of you put together’: but ‘more 
than any of you’ is sufficient for the argument. The omission 
of éru before zavrwy raises the second sentence in importance, 
making it co-ordinate instead of dependent. How “perfectly 
sane and sober” the Apostle is in all this is well pointed out 
by Weinel, St Pau/, pp. 142 f. 


XIV. 18-20] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 315 


The AV. inserts ‘my’ before ‘God,’ with KL, Vulg. But nearly all 
other authorities omit. It is more difficult to decide between yAdoon 
(SNA DEFG 17, Latt. Arm.) and yAwooas (BK LP, Syrr. Copt. Aeth. 
Chrys. Thdrt.). But Aa\@ (8 B D E P 17, Latt. Syrr. Copt. Arm.) is to be 
preferred to \ad@v (KL, Chrys. Thdrt.), which is a correction arising from 
the absence of ért. The omission of “adXov is curious ; omnzum vestrum 
lingua loguor (Vulg. df). A omits \ad@; ‘I give thanks in a Tongue.’ 


19. Ga ev ékxAnoia. ‘But (whatever I may do in private) 
in an assembly I had rather speak five words with my understand- 
ing. For éédw... 4, ‘I prefer,’ comp. 2 Mac. xiv. 42; the use 
is classical (Hom. //. 1. 117), and is found in papyri (Deissmann, 
Light, p. 179): and dadfjoa rather than Aadcty, because of the 
definite number of words spoken on the contemplated occasion. 
Katnxjow (Rom. ii. 18; Gal. vi. 6; Luke i. 4) implies thorough 
instruction by word of mouth; of what is sounded down into the 
ear. The verb in N.T. is found in Paul and Luke only. La 
Rochefoucauld (JZax. 142) contrasts the grands esprits who 
convey much meaning in few words with those who have /e 
don de beaucoup parler et de rien dire.* 


20. This verse is better taken as the beginning of a new 
portion of the subject rather than as the conclusion of what. 
precedes. It opens affectionately. Comp. x. 14; Rom. x. 1; 
Gal. iil. 15, vi. 1; 1 Thess. v. 25: in each case the opening 
*AdeAdol makes a fresh start. 

‘Brethren, do not prove children in your minds, but in 
jealousy of one another show yourselves (not merely children 
but) babes: in your minds (Prov. vil. 7, ix. 4) prove full-grown 
men’; ze. ‘Play the part of babies, if you like, in freedom from 
malice: but in common sense try to act like grown-up people.’ 
A severe rebuke to those who prided themselves on their intellig- 
ence. Children prefer what glitters and makes a show to what 
is much more valuable; and it was childish to prefer ecstatic 
utterance to other and far more useful gifts.— Nowhere else in 
N.T. does ¢peves occur, but in LXX it is frequent in Proverbs 
in the phrase evdeqs dpevav, which St Paul may have in his mind. 
AV. and RV. are probably right in translating xaxéa ‘ malice’ or 
‘maliciousness,’ rather than ‘wickedness’ or ‘vice,’ in all the 
places in which it occurs in St Paul (v. 8; Rom. i. 29; Eph. 
iv. 31; Col. iii. 8; Tit. iii. 3, where it is joined with ¢@ovos). In 

* On this verse Erasmus remarks; ‘‘They chant nowadays in our 
churches what is an unknown tongue and nothing else, while you will not 
hear a sermon once in six months telling people to amend their lives. 
Modern church music is so constructed that the congregation cannot hear 
one distinct word. The choristers themselves do not understand what they 
are singing” (Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, p. 117). 

+ Repuerascere nos et apostolus jubet secundum deum, ut malitia infantes 
per simplicitatem, ita demum sapientes sensibus (Tert. Adv. Valent. 2). 


316 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIV. 20, 21 


1 Pet. ii. 1 (see Hort) it is joined with ddAos, pAdvor, and kara- 
AaAtat. In class. Grk. xaxia in the moral sense is opposed to 
dpery, and is vice of any kind, but especially cowardice. Later 
it comes to mean maliciousness and ill-will; often in the Testa- 
ments of the XII. Patriarchs; Symeon iv. 6; Zabulon viii. nS 
Gad vi. 7; and especially Benjamin viii. 1 ; ard8pare THY Kakiav, 
tov pOovov Kai THv picadeApiav. See 2 Mac. iv. 4. Everywhere 
in St Paul the Vulgate has ma/itia, and even in Matt. vi. 34; but 
in Acts viii. 22 xeguitia. Nymaew occurs nowhere else in the 
Bible: comp. xiii. 11; Rom. xvi. 19. 


21. év tH vdpw yéypamtat. ‘In the Law it stands written.’ 
The reference is to Isa. xxviii. 11, 12, and 6 vopos here means 
Scripture generally; Rom. ili. 19; John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25. 
See Orig. Philocalia ix. 2; Suicer, ii Pp. 416: mwacay tiv maXdaay, 
ov povov ta Mucaixa (Theoph.). But the connexion of the 
quotation with the argument here is not easy: perhaps some- 
thing of this sort; ‘I have pointed out that Tongues are a 
blessed experience to the individual believer, and that, if inter- 
preted, they may benefit the believing congregation. Tongues 
have a further use, as a sign to wbelievers ; not a convincing, 
saving sign, but a judicial sign. Just as the disobedient Jews, 
who refused to listen to the clear and intelligible message which 
God frequently sent to them through His Prophets, were 
chastised by being made to listen to the unintelligible language 
of foreign invaders, so those who now fail to believe the Gospel 
are chastised by hearing wonderful sounds which they cannot 
understand.’ If this is correct, we may compare Christ’s use 
of parables to veil His meaning from those who could not or 
would not receive it. The quotation is very free, and is not 
from the LXX.* 


t Cor-xivecr. LXX of Isa. xxviii. 11, 12. 


“Ore ev erepoyAoocots kal ev dua pavduopov xerewr, dua 
xeiheow erépov | arjow TO hap yooons € éTépas: Ort Aadjrovery TO 
TovT@, kal ovS ovTas elaaxovcovTai Aa@ TOUT® Aéyovres avrois, Tovro 


pov, A€yer Kupuos. TO avdmavpa TO TEWOVTL Kal TOUTO 
To oovrpyupa, kat ovx 70eAnoay 
dxovewy. 


‘For with alien-tongued men and with lips of aliens will 
I speak to this people, and not even thus will they hearken 


* Origen says, Tatra 7a pyuata evpomev mapa’ AxUdg Kal Tals Nourrais €xdd- 
ceow, ov way mapa Tots €8dounkovra: and again, edpov Ta looduvapodvra TH Aé~et 
Tatry év Ty TOD Axtdovu tpunvelia kelweva (Phtlocaléa ix. 2). On yéypamrat of 
Scripture, see Deissmann, Azb/e Studies, pp. 112f. The connexion with the 
argument may be; ‘Tongues do not emgender faith, while prophecy does’ 
(v. 24); or, ‘Tongues appeal to no faith, as prophecy does, in the hearers. 
Tongues, then, are a sign to unbelievers.” 


XIV. 21-23] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 317 


unto Me, saith the Lord.’ The or is not recitative, but is part 
of the quotation, representing what might be rendered ‘ Yea’ 
or ‘Truly for.’ In Isaiah the men with alien tongue are the 
Assyrians. Isaiah’s opponents are supposed to have jeered at 
him for repeating the same simple message; ‘We are not 
children, requiring to be told the same thing over and over 
again.” Then he threatens them with the terrible gibberish 
(like stammering) of foreign invaders. See W. E. Barnes, 
ad loc. The main part of the application here is the conclusion, 
ov6' obTws eirakovoovTat mov, Where the compound is stronger than 
the simple dxovev, and perhaps represents ‘z7//ing to listen’: 
Luke i. 13; Acts x. 31; Heb. v. 7—of God’s listening to 
prayer. 


érépats yAwooas (F G, Vulg. 2 alézs dinguis, Tert.) for érepoyAdooas, 
and érépous (D EF GK LP, Latt.) for érépwv (& A B 17 and other cursives) 
are probably corrections of scribes. ‘ErepdéyAwooos is found in Aquila, but 
not in LXX, 


22. dete. ‘So then (ze. in harmony with this passage of 
Scripture), the Tongues are fora sign to men who do not believe.’ 
He dc2s not say that they ave a sign, but that they are intended to 
serve as such—eis onpetov: Gen. “ix. 13; Num. xvi 38, xvil. tos 
Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18, etc. Nor does he say what kind of a sign, 
but the context shows that it is for judgment rather than for 
salvation: comp. eis paptvpiov (Mark i. 44, vi. 11, etc.), which is 
equally indefinite. No «is oy. after tpodpyreia. 


28. But it is obvious that, even for unbelievers, prophesying 
is more valuable than Tongues. ‘If, therefore, the whole Church 
be come together to one place, and all are speaking with 
Tongues, and there come in ungifted people or unbelievers, will 
they not say that ye are raving?’ It was strange that what the 
Corinthians specially prided themselves on was a gift which, if 
exercised in public, would excite the derision of unbelievers. 
The Corinthians weve crazy, although not exactly as heathen 
might suppose. Compare the charge of drunkenness at 
Pentecost ; Acts ii. 13. 

If émi 13 aéré means ‘for the same object,’ the object might 
be the Tongues: the Corinthians came together to enjoy this 
spiritual luxury and exhibit it to others: but both here and xi. 
20 it probably means ‘to the same place’ (Luke xvii. 35 ; Acts 
i. 15, li. 1, iii. 1). In any case, wavres does not mean that they 
all spoke at once: wdvres cannot mean that in v. 24, and there- 
fore does not mean it here. It means that one after another 
they uttered unintelligible language, and no one said anything 
that ordinary persons could understand ; the service consisted of 
glossolalia. Note the changes of tense; ovvéAOy and cioéAPwow 


318 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XIV. 23-25 


of what took place once for all, AaAdow of what continued for 
some time. Perhaps in both verses (23, 24) he is assuming an 
extreme case for the sake of argument, that all present have the 
gift of Tongues, and that all present have the gift of prophesying. 
The latter would be very much better. 

Evidently, the heathen sometimes obtained admission to 
Christian assemblies as to the synagogues. This may have 
depended upon local custom, or upon the character of the 
intruders, who might be friends of the family in whose house the 
assembly was held. See Swete on Rev. iii. 8. 


24. édv Sé mdvres mpopytedworv. ‘ Whereas, if all should be pro- 
phesying, and there should come in some unbeliever or ungifted 
person.’ The change to the singular and the change of order 
have point. A good effect would be more probable in the case 
of an individual than of a group; and if the dmioros was deeply 
moved by what he heard, a fortiori the iduwrys would be. In the 
former case the argument is the other way: if idudirax said that 
they were demented, still more would distro. do so. Speaking 
with Tongues injfidelem stbi relinguit; inspired preaching ex 
infidelibus credentes fact, et fideles pascit (Beng.). 

ehéyxetar ond mévtwv. ‘He is convicted by all’; by all 
the inspired speakers, whose preaching arouses his conscience 
(Heb. iv. 12). ‘ He is convinced of all’ (AV.) is ambiguous and 
misleading. ‘Convince’ formerly =‘convict’ or ‘refute’ (John 
viii. 46; Job xxxii. 12). For ‘of’=‘ by’ see xi. 32 ; Phil. iii. 12; 
Matt. vi. 1; Luke xiv. 8; and “may of Thee be plenteously 
rewarded.” 

évaxpivetat 61d mévtwv. ‘ He is searched into by all’; ix. 3, 
x. 25, 27; Luke xxiii. 14, etc. There are three stages in the 
process of conversion: (1) he is convinced of his sinful condi- 
tion ; (2) he is put upon his trial, and the details of his condition 
are investigated ; (3) the details are made plain to him. On the 
unsatisfactory renderings of «xpivw and its compounds in the AV. 
see Lightfoot, On Revision, pp. 69 f. 


25. The scrutiny in the court of conscience (avdxpiots) pro- 
duces self-revelation, self-condemnation, and submission. ‘The 
secrets of his heart become manifest, and thus, falling upon his 
face, he will worship God.’ A spontaneous expression of 
submission and thankfulness; but the homage is to God, not 
to the inspired speaker. The gift of prophesying, however 
successful, is no glory to the possessor of it. It is the Spirit of 
God, not the preacher’s own power, that works the wonderful 
effect. This verse seems to be at variance with v. 22; 
‘prophesying is not for the unbelieving’: but the discrepancy 


XIV. 25, 26] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 319 


is only apparent. The comparison with the disobedient Israel- 
ites shows that the amoro. in v. 22 have heard the word and 
rejected it. Here the context shows that the dmioros has not 
previously heard. Comp. Saul and his messengers (1 Sam. xix. 
20-24). With ‘fall down on his face’ comp. the Samaritan 
leper (Luke xvii. 16). In the Gospels zpooxvuvety is frequent, 
but here only in St Paul. The tduwrys is almost forgotten in 
this stronger instance: if an unbeliever is thus retpayyAvopevos 
(Heb. iv. 13), how much more the ungifted or inexperienced 
Christian. 

dtayyé\\wy Stt dvtws 6 Oeds ev Suiv €otiv. ‘ Proclaiming that” 
(so far from your being mad, and little as he had hitherto 
supposed that you were thus blessed) verily God is among you.’ 
In dzayyé\Xwv the sender rather than the destination (dévayy.) of 
the message is thought of: he spreads it abroad from (abkiindigen). 
This declaration begins there and then, and is continued after- 
wards : ultro, plane, diserte pronuncians Deum vere esse in vobis et 
verum Deum esse qui in vobis est (Beng.); dvrws, in spite of his 
previous scoffs and denials, there is the Real Presence of the 
true God. The article before @eds is doubtless genuine 
(8 BD? DE KL); it has special point in the unbeliever’s 
confession. Both ‘among you’ as a congregation and ‘in your 
hearts’ as individuals would be included in év iptv, but the 
former most strongly. Compare the confession of Alcibiades as 
to the effect of Socrates upon him; ‘I have heard Pericles and 
other great orators, but I never had any similar feeling ; my soul 
was not stirred by them, nor was I angry at the thought of my 
slavish state. But Socrates makes me confess that I ought not 
to live as I do, neglecting the wants of my soul. And he is the 
only person who ever made me ashamed: for I know that I 
cannot answer him or say that I ought not to doas he bids,” etc. 
(Plato, Symposium, 215, 216). For dvrws, see Gal. iii. 2; Mark 
ey 32 

The AV., with some inferior MSS., has ‘and thus’ (kai ofrw or xal 


olrws) at the beginning of the verse (§ABD*FG, Vulg. omit), and 
repeats ‘and so’ in the proper place. 


26-33. Regulations for the Orderly Exercise of Tongues 
and Prophesying in the Congregation. 


St Paul has here completed his treatment (xii.—xiv.) of 
mvevpatixd. He now gives detailed directions as to their use. 


26. Ti odv éotiv, d8eAdgot; ‘What then is the result, brethren,’ 
of this discussion? Comp. v. 15. In answering his own 
question he first gives the facts of the case, then states the 


320 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XIV. 26, 27 


indispensable principle that all things are to be done unto 
edifying, and finally gives practical directions for applying this 
principle. 

Stav guvépynobe. ‘Whenever ye are coming together (vz. 23, 
xi. 17, 18, 20), each has ready (comp. waves, vv. 23, 24) a psalm 
to improvise, a lesson to give, a revelation to make known, a 
Tongue to utter, an interpretation to explain the Tongue.’ All 
these gifts are there in the several individuals ready to be 
manifested. By all means let them be manifested. But never 
lose sight of the more excellent way of love: let the edification 
of others be the end ever in view.* 

The spontaneous character of the manifestations is graphic- 
ally indicated. There was no lack of persons eager to manifest 
some gift. But perhaps the Apostle intimates that they do not 
come to public worship quite in the right spirit. This readiness 
to come to the front would be sure to lead to abuse unless care- 
fully controlled. What they ought to be eager to do is to use 
their gifts for the good of all. This is the op/ima norma. But 
we cannot safely infer that we have here the order in which the 
manifestations commonly took place at Corinth,—first a psalm, 
then instruction, and so on. Compare the account of Christian 
assemblies in Tertullian (Aol. 39). The account of the 
Therapeutae ought not to be quoted in illustration, still less as 
Philo’s: the zrepi Biov Pewpyrixod is possibly a Christian fiction, and 
perhaps wholly imaginative. With €xaoros éxyes compare €xacros 
déyer (i. 12), and for improvised psalms see Moses and Miriam 
(Exod. xv.), Balaam (Num. xxiii., xxiv.), Deborah (Judg. v.), and 
the Canticles (Luke i, ii.). It is remarkable that there is no zpo- 
gyretay éxe. Was that gift so despised at Corinth that those 
who possessed it did not often come forward? Wadpds occurs 
in N.T. in Paul and Luke only. ‘Eppyvia occurs nowhere else 
in N.T., excepting xii. To. 

The dudv after éxaoros (D EF GK L, Vulg. AV.) is probably spurious : 
8 AB 17, Copt. RV. omit. And doxdd\uyw ever should precede yAéooar 
éxee (NABDEFG 17, Latt. Syrr. Copt. Aeth. RV.), not follow it 


(L, Chrys. Thdrt., AV.). The Tongue and the interpretation would be 
mentioned together. 


27. elite yXdéoon tis Aadet. As in xii. 28 (ovs pev), a con- 
struction is begun and left unfinished. This is the first member 
of a distributive sentence, which ought to have goneoneire. . ., 
eire. But there is no second member: at v. 29, where it might 


* Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2534”, expands the passage thus; ‘ Just 
when ye are assembling for sacred worship, and ought to be thinking of 
Christ and of Christ’s Body, the congregation, each one is perhaps thinking of 
himself, ‘I have a Psalm,’ ‘I have a Doctrine,’ ‘I have a Revelation.’ 
Have done with this! Let all be done to edification.’ ’ 


XIV. 27-29] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 321 


have come, a new construction is started, perhaps because the 
eire is forgotten, or perhaps deliberately, because the presence of 
prophets in the assembly is assumed as certain. Moreover, 
there is no verb with xara d¥vo x.7.A., but AadAcirwoay is readily 
understood (1 Pet. iv. rr). There might be many ready to speak 
with Tongues, but the number was to be limited down to (dis- 
tributive use of card) two, or at most three, who were to speak in 
turn. The insertion of ava pepos perhaps implies that sometimes 
two tried to speak at once.* One, and one only (efs not tus), was 
to interpret ; there was to be no interpreting in turn, which might 
lead to profitless discussion. Moreover, this would be a security 
against two speaking with Tongues at the same time, for one 
interpreter could not attend to both. Possibly the gift of inter- 
pretation was more rare, for the possibility of there being no 
interpreter present is contemplated. 


28. ovydtw év exxdyoia. In strict grammar, this should mean 
that the interpreter must keep silence, but the change of subject 
is quite intelligible, and indeed necessary. The verb is one of 
many which in N.T. are found only in Paul and Luke (Hawkins, 
Hor. Syn. p. 191). 

éaut@ S€ Aadeitw. The pronoun is emphatic: ‘to Aimse/f let 
him speak,’ that is, in private, not in the congregation. It 
cannot mean that he is to ‘commune with his own heart,’ in 
public, ‘and be still.’ + The whole point of Aad throughout 
the chapter is that of making audible utterance. If he cannot 
interpret his Tongue, and there is no irterpreter present, he 
must not exercise his gift until he is alone. The difference 
between dceppnvevt7s (A EK L) and éppyvevrys (B D* F G) is 
unimportant. The latter occurs Gen, xlii. 23, the former 
nowhere else in Biblical Greek. 


29. The directions with regard to prophesying are much the 
same as those with regard to Tongues, but are less explicit. 
Not more than three are to prophesy on any one occasion, and 
of course only one at a time ; but 7 70 wAéiorov is here omitted. 
Of those who speak with Tongues, three in one assembly, with 
one interpreter, is an absolute maximum ; of those who prophesy, 
three would generally be a convenient limit. 

ot Gddor Staxpwerwoav. ‘Let the others discern,’ caetert 
dijudicent ; let them discriminate whether what is being said is 
realy inspired. ‘This ‘discerning of spirits,’ dudxpiois rvevudrov 


* In St Paul dvd occurs only here and vi. 5. In the N.T. it is generally 
distributive, as here, or in the phrase dvd péoov, as vi. 5. Nowhere else in 
N.T. does 7d rheiorov, ‘at the most,’ occur: do 4 76 ye mwheiorov Tpeis is 
found in papyri. . 

t+ dpodnri xal npéuat kad’ éavrdév (Theoph.). 

‘ 2I 


322 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XIV. 29-31 


(xii. 10), was a gift, and it is assumed that an inspired preacher 
would possess it. There was the possibility that éavr@ tis Aap- 
Baver thy tiny of prophesying, without being xaAovpevos tro Tov 
@eov (Heb. v. 4). The listening prophets are therefore to use 
this gift: they are etiam tacendo utiles Ecclesiae (Calv.) by pre- 
serving the congregation from being misled by one who is nct 
really guided by the Spirit, but “by some evil spirit fashioning 
himself into an angel of light,” as Origen puts it. It is a mistake 
to say that in the Didache a contrary instruction to this is given. 
There the command is: ravta mpopyrnv AaXdodvta ev rvevpate ov 
TeEipaceTe OVOE SiaxpivEeiTe’ TaGa yap apaptia adeOnoeral, aitn Se 1 
dpaptia ovx abeOncerat (xi. 7). The prophet has been tested, and 
found to be a true prophet, and it is expressly stated that he is 
speaking év zvevpati: therefore to question his utterances would 
be 4 rod Hvetparos BAaodpypia (Matt. xii. 31). 


As in Phil. ii. 3 (4AXjAous) and iv. 3 (rav AomwGv), ‘the other’ (AV.) is 
here plural: comp. Josh. viii. 22; 2 Chron. xxxii. 32; Job xxiv. 24. But 
‘let the other judge’ now seems to apply to only one of the listening 
prophets : comp. v. 17. 

ot dda (N ABE K, Vulg.) is to be preferred to d\Xo. (D* F GL), and 
diuaxpwérwoay (NABEKL) to dvaxpwérwoay (D* FG), ‘examine’ 
(Arm. ). 


30. €dv S€ GAAw arroxahupOy kabypevw. ‘But if a revelation 
be made to another sitting by.’ As in the synagogue, the con- 
gregation sat to listen to reading or preaching, and perhaps we 
may infer that the reader or preacher stood (Luke iv. 16; Acts 
xilil. 16). The a@dAos would no doubt give some sign that he had 
received a call to speak, and in that case the one who was 
then speaking was to draw to a close. The Apostle does not 
say oryynodre, ‘let him at once be silent,’ but ovyatw, which need 
not mean that. Those who often addressed the congregation 
would be open to the temptation of continuing to speak after 
their message was delivered, and they would certainly need the 
exhortations and warnings of other inspired preachers. No one 
was to occupy the whole time to the exclusion of others, and 
each ought to rejoice that others possessed this gift as well as 
himself (Num. xi. 28). 


31. Suvacbe yap Kab’ Eva mdvtes mpopytevew. ‘For ye have 
the power, one by one, a// of you, to prophesy.’ If each preacher 
stops when another receives a message, all the prophets, however 
many there may be, will be able to speak in successive assemblies, 
three at each meeting. They are capable of making room for 
one another, and (like the rest of the congregation) they are 
capable of receiving instruction and encouragement. The 
congregation would learn more through a change of preachers, 


, 


XIV. 31-33] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 323 


and the preachers also would learn more through listening to 
one another.* 


32. kal mvevpata mpopytdv mpodytats Swotdocera. ‘And 
prophets’ spirits are subject to prophets.’ The present tense 
states an established fact or principle. The spirits of sibyls and 
pythonesses were not under their control; utterance continued 
till the impulse ceased. But this is not the case with one who 
is inspired by God; a preacher without self-control is no true 
prophet: and uncontrolled religious feeling is sure to lead 
to evil. This therefore is a second justification of 6 zpdros 
atyatw: he can hold his peace, for prophets always have their 
own spirits under the control of their understanding and their 
will. 

Some would make zpodyraér refer to those who speak, and 
mpopyrais to those for whom the speakers have to make room. 
But the juxtaposition of the two words is against this. Moreover, 
he does not say ‘ought to be subject to,’ as a matter of order, 
but, ‘azve subject to,’ as a matter of fact. Again, why say ‘spirits 
of prophets’ instead of ‘prophets’? It would have been much 
simpler to say ‘Prophets mst be in subjection to one another’ if 
this had been his meaning. It is probable that rvevpara means 
the prophetic charismata rather than the spirits of the persons 
who possess them, although the interpretation of the sentence is 
much the same in either case: comp. xii. 10 and see Swete on 
Rey. xxii. 6. The omission of the article in all three places 
makes the saying more like a maxim or proverb; comp. ‘Jews 
have no dealings with Samaritans’ (John iv. 9). 


mvevpata (N ABKL, Vulg. Copt.) may safely be preferred to mvedua 
(D F, Aeth.), which probably was substituted under the influence of xii. 
4-13. Novatian has sferztus prophetarum prophetis subjectus est (De Trin. 
xxix. ). 


33. od yap éotw dkatactagias 0 Geds. Proof that the prophetic 
gift is under control, and that therefore an inspired speaker can 
stop and give place to another. ‘The God who gives the inspira- 
tion is not on the side of disorder and turbulence, but on that of 
peace. He cannot be a promoter of tumult, and therefore 
cannot inspire two people to speak simultaneously to the same 
audience. The fact of His inspiring a second speaker is proof 
that the first can stop and ought to do so. Inspiration is no 


* Perhaps, as Origen takes it, St Paul contemplated the possibility of all 
the congregation being prophets. There must, he says, have been something 
of a prophetic spirit in Israel, sufficient for the discerning of prophets ; for the 
utterances of the false prophets, who were such favourites at court, have all 
perished, while the utterances of the Prophets of God, who were so persecuted, 
have been preserved (/7°S. x. 37, p. 41). 


324 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | XIV. 33-34 


excuse for conflict and confusion, and jealousies and dissensions 
are not signs of the presence of God (v. 25); 4 dayamrn ovK dox7- 
povei. The principle here stated justifies us in maintaining that 
miracles are not violations of law; God is not on the side of 
violations of law, but is on the side of peace, which results from 
preserving law: comp. 6 @eds ris eipyvns (Rom. xvi. 20). For 
dxaragracia, which is a strong word—dissensio (Vulg. hs seditio 
(Caly. )—compare 2 Cor. xii. 20; Jas. iii. 16; Luke xxi. 9.* 

ds év mdgats Tats exkAnoias TOV dylwv. Added, as in xi. 16, 
as conclusive, and the addition of rv dyiwv is made with some 
severity. Orderly reverence is a characteristic of a// the Churches 
of the saints, a fact which raises doubts as to whether the Church 
at Corinth is a Church of saints: comp. iv. 17, vii. 17. Some 
editors place these words at the beginning of the next paragraph, 
where év tais éxxAnolas makes them seem somewhat superfluous. 
Moreover, it is more probable that St Paul would begin the 
paragraph with the subject of it, at yuvatkes, as in Eph. y. 22, 25, 
vi. 1, 5; Col. iii, 18-22; 1 Pet. ili. 1, 7. Chrysostom mixes this 
clause with iv. 17 and vil. 17 and quotes otrw yap €v macais Tals 
exkAnotas Tov aylwy didaocKw.t If St Paul had written this, it 
would of necessity belong to what precedes, and not to vw. 34. 
Assuming that it is best taken with what precedes, to which of 
the preceding clauses does it belong? Possibly to od yap eorw 
x.7.4.. Reverent submission to order is everywhere a note of the 
Church. Others take it with xat rvevpara rpopyrayv «.7.X., making 
ov yap éoriv parenthetical WH. make from kat rvevpata to 
eipyvys parenthetical, and take this clause with iva wavres pav- 
Gavwow x.7.4. This makes a very awkward parenthesis, and as ev 
mdaoals T. €k comes in too late to add much force to tva raves pavOd- 
vwow. Perhaps the worst punctuation is to take ws év mdcais T. 
ex. with what precedes, and rtév dyiwy with ai yuvatkes év Taig ék. 
See Hort, Zhe Chr. Eccl. pp. 117, 120. 


34-40. Directions as to Women; Concluding Exhortations. 


34. The women are to keep silence in the public services. 
They would join in the Amen (zv. 16), but otherwise not be 
heard. ‘They had been claiming equality with men in the matter 
of the veil, by discarding this mark of subjection in Church, and 
apparently they had also been attempting to preach, or at any 
rate had been asking questions during service. We are not sure 
whether St Paul contemplated the fossibility of women prophesy- 

* St James (iii. 8) calls the tongue dxardorarov xaxéy, as promoting the 


disorder which is directly opposed to God’s will: see Hort ad /oc. 
t+ Stcut et in omnibus ecclesiis sanctorum doceo (Vulg.). 


XIV. 34, 35] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 325 


ing in exceptional cases.* What is said in xi. 5 may be hypo- 
thetical. Teaching he forbids them to attempt; dddoKew 82 
yuvakt ov« émitpérw, a rule taken over from the synagogue and 
maintained in the primitive Church (1 Tim. ii. 12). Discarding 
the veil was claiming equality with man; teaching in public was 
aiGevrety avdpos. Hence the command here. 

itotaccécQwoav, Kabws Kal 6 vdpos Aéyer. So far from their 
having dominion over men, ‘let them be in subjection, even as 
also the Law saith.’ The reference is to the primeval command, 
Gen. iii. 16: comp. Eph. v. 22. Had the Apostle heard of 
Gaia Afrania, wife of Licinius Buccio, a contentious lady who 
insisted on pleading her own causes in court, and was such a 
nuisance to the praetors that an edict was made prohibiting 
women from pleading? She died B.c. 48. For Greek sentiment 
on the subject see Thuc. 11. xlv. 2. 


There should probably be no day after al yuvatkes (NAB 17, Vulg. 
Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit): but if it be accepted (DEF GK L, Syrr.), it is 
in contrast to tav aylwy. ‘Let your women (or your wives) not act 
differently from those among the saints.’ 

If brordccecbat (DF G K L, Vulg. Arm.) be read instead of ‘roraccéc- 
G@woay (§ A B17, Copt. Aeth.) there is a touch of irony: ‘women are not 
permitted to speak ; they ave permitted to keep their proper place’: on 
enim permittitur ets loguz, sed subditas esse. So also Chrys., who with K 
has émurérpamrat, for éwitpéwera, perhaps on the analogy of yéypamra. 


35. ei 5€ Tt pabetv O€douary, €v oikw k.t.A. ‘And moreover, if 
they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands a¢ 
home.’ The women might urge that they did not always understand 
the prophesying: might they not ask for an explanation. Asking 
to be taught was not self-assertion but submissiveness. But the 
Apostle will not allow this: questions may be objections to what 
is preached, or even contradictions of it: €y otxw (in emphatic 
contrast to €v tats éxkAnotais) they can ask their own husbands, 
and if these do not know, ‘ey can ask in the assemblies. It is 
assumed that only married women would think of asking questions 
in public ; unmarried women could get a question asked through 
the married. Origen quotes, zpos tov dvdpa cov % aroatpodyy cov 
(Gen. iil. 16). Perhaps husbands, by analogy, would cover 
brothers and sons. Compare Soph. Ajax 293, ytvar, yovagt 
Koopov 4 ary) pepe. Eur. Phoentss. 200; Tro. 649. But ne 

* Tertullian takes it so; cacterum prophetandi jus et illas habere jam 
ostendit, cum muliert etiam prophetantt velamen imponit (Adv. Marcion. 
v. 8). So also does Harnack, 7he Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 
ii. pp. 65, 71; pp. 395, 400, ed. 1902, Weinel suspects that this verse is an 
interpolation by a later hand, and that 1 Tim. ii. 12 also is late. Hilgenfeld, 
Holsten, Schmiedel, and others regard vv. 34, 35 as an interpolation: see 
Moffatt, Héstorical N.7., pp. 727{. In some MSS of Ambrosiaster, vv. 34 


and 35, with the notes, are transferred to the end of the chapter, after z, 40 
(A. Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 189). 


326 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | XIV. 35, 36 


videretur eas etiam discere prohibutsse, ostendit eas domi debere 
discere (Primasius). 
aisxpov. A strong word, used of women being clipped or 
shorn (xi. 6): comp. Eph, v. 12; Tit. i. 11—the only other in- 
stances in the N.T. It is really a scandalous thing for a woman 
to address the congregation or disturb it by speaking. What 
follows is still more severe, but it is put sarcastically. 
yuvaikl Nadety év éexxAnola (NAB 17, Vulg. Copt. Aeth.) rather than 
yuvartiv év éxx, Nadketv (DEF GKL, Syrr.). A few authorities have 


yuvaikl év éxk. Aad. or yuvarkiv Aad, év éxx. The plural is an obvious 
correction to agree with the preceding plurals. 


36. "H dd’ Spay 6 Adyos Tod Oeod €éAOev, 7 Eis Spas pdvous 
KatyvTnoev ; ‘What? was it from you that the word of God came 
forth? or was it to you alone that it reached?’ The AV. has 
three inaccuracies: (1) a false accent is thrown on to the pre- 
positions ‘from’ and ‘unto,’ as if the two questions gave two 
alternatives; (2) e&jAdev and karyvrnoev are both rendered 
‘came’; (3) povovs is rendered ‘only,’ which is ambiguous. 
The meaning is, ‘Were you the starting-point of the Gospel? 
or were you its only destination? Do you mean to contend that 
you have the right to maintain these irregularities? women 
discarding veils in public worship, people getting drunk at the 
Supper, people speaking in Tongues and no one interpreting, 
prophets refusing to give place to one another, women claiming 
to prophesy and ask questions in public worship? If you defend 
such scandals as these, one can only suppose that you claim to 
be the A and © of the Gospel, the fount and reservoir of all 
Church teaching, the starting-point and the goal of all Church 
discipline.’ * Compare % 050s avrod Kal 76 katdvtnpa adrod (Ps. 
xix. 6); and see J. A. Robinson on Eph. iv. 13. For Corin- 
thian assumption of independence see iv. 6, v. 2. 

We cannot infer from ¢is tuaés being used rather than mpds 
tpas that the idea of “entering as it were into them ” is included; 
for eis is the regular construction after xatavraw (x. 11; Eph. 
iv. 133; Phil. iii. 11); also in the literal sense of arriving at a place 
(Acts xvi. 1, xviii. 19, 24, etc.). In the N.T. the verb is peculiar 
to Acts and St Paul. Nor must we infer that, if Corinth had 
been the Mother-Church, the Apostle would have allowed that 
it had the right to sanction such things. His sarcastic argument 
is that they seem to be claiming a monstrous amount of authority 
and independence. The verse sums up his indignation. 


* Haec quae vobis trado, tenere debetis, non vestra instituta mets tradition- 
thus praeferre, et caeterts fidelibus quast fontem religionts velle tradere. 
Quoniam a nobis qui de circumcisione sumus coepit evangelica praedicatio, non 
a vobis; nec beneficium vos dedéstés, sed accepistis. Nec quasi singulariter 
elect? debetis gloriart, aut de singulard sctentia‘extolld (Herveius). 


XIV. 37, 38] SPIRITUAL GIFTS 327 


37, 38. He here sums up his own authority in a manner 
very similar to xi. 16: both passages begin with ei tis Soxel, 
Comp. also iii. 18, viii; 2. The meaning of doxed must in each 
case be determined by the context. ‘If any man thinketh him- 
self to be a prophet or endowed with any spiritual gift’; not 
*seemeth to be,’ védetur (Vulg.) but ‘sidi videtur’ (Beza). It is 
what the man is in his own eyes that is the point here. 

eTiywwokéeTw & ypddw Sutv, St. Kuplou eotiv évtoky. ‘Let him 
continually take knowledge of what I am writing to you, that it 
is the Zord’s commandment.’ Kvpiov is very emphatic. ‘ Let 
him prove his own inspiration by fully recognizing my absolute 
authority.’ The sureness of a divinely appointed Apostle is in 
the verse: zon patitur Paulus demum quaert an recte scribat 
(Beng.). He is conscious that what he says does not come from 
himself; he is the mouthpiece of Christ: ii. 10-16, vii. 40; 
2 Cor. xill. 3; comp. 1 John iv. 6.* But he is not claiming 
authority to regulate these details for the whole Church through- 
out all time: no such vast extension is in his mind. What he is 
claiming is authority to regulate them for the Corinthian Chris- 
tians at that time (ix. 2). And the & ypédw covers all that he 
has been saying about disorders in public worship (xi.-xiv.). 
His indignation in v. 36 is provoked by all these irregularities, 
and & ypa¢w has the same extension. It is a mistake to limit 
either to the question of women speaking in Church. 

et 8€ Tis dyvoet dyvoeirw. ‘But if any one is ignorant (that 
Christ is the Source of my rulings in these matters), let him be 
ignorant.’ His ignorance does not alter facts, and he must be 
left in his unedifying condition. Siz guis tgnorat, ignoret (Calv.). 
Qui vero ignarus est, ignarus esto (Beza). ‘‘Why does he add 
this?” asks Chrysostom: “To show that he does not use 
compulsion and is not contentious; which is a mark of those 
who do not wish to establish their own advantage but seek what 
is beneficial to others.” 


But it is possible that the true reading is dyvoetra, ‘he is ignored’ by 
God ; he fails to recognize God’s Apostle, and God refuses to recognize 
him. But St Paul does not say ‘if he refuses to admit my authority,’ but 
‘if he is not aware of it’; and being ignored by God seems to be an 
excessive requital for mere ignorance. ‘I do not care to dispute with 
him’ is more reasonable. The evidence is rather evenly balanced : dyvoetrac 
(&* A* D* FG 17, zgnorabitur Vulg.: dyvoelrw (B EK L and the cor- 
rectors of § A D, Syrr. Copt. Aeth. Arm., Orig. Chrys. Thdrt.), see viii. 
3; Gal. iv. 9. But in one passage Origen has expressly dyvoetras bao Tod 
cot (J 7S. x. 37, p. 30. 


* It is possible that with D* FG, Orig. we ought to omit évyroAy: the 
brief 67 Kuptov éoriv is impressive. The AV, follows EK L, Vulg. Syrr. in 
reading elaiv évro\al. Resch assumes an unrecorded saying of Christ 
(Agrapha, p. 31). 


328 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XIV. 39, 40 


39. dote, adeApoi pov. As in xi. 33, these words introduce 
an affectionate summing up after severe censure: Post multas 
correptiones, fratres cos appellat, ut subleventur (Atto). For éore 
see vil. 38, x. 12, xv. 58. ‘So then, my brethren, continue to 
desire earnestly the gift of prophesying, and that of speaking with 
Tongues hinder ye not.’* A vast difference ; the one gift to be 
greatly longed for, the other only not forbidden; for, as Chrys. 
points out, ro tdv yAwoodv otre ravtn axpyotov, ovTe opodpa 
apeAwov ka’ eavtro. See 1 Thess. v. 19, 20. 


40. mdvra S€ edoynpdvws Kat kata tdfiv ywéobw. ‘Only (de) 
let all things be carried on-(pres. imperat.) with seemliness and 
in order.’ For evoynpovws comp. Rom. xiil. 13 ; 1 Thess. iv. 12, 
where see Milligan’s note and quotations from papyri. Ecclesi- 
astical decorum is meant; beauty and harmony prevail in God’s 
universe, where each part discharges its proper function without 
slackness or encroachment; and beauty and harmony ought to 
prevail in the worship of God. In xara ragw we probably have 
a military metaphor. ‘The exact phrase occurs nowhere else in 
either N.T. or LXX, but is used of the Greeks’ manner of fight- 
ing at Salamis as opposed to the disorderly efforts of the barbarians 
(Hdt. viii. 86). Possibly evoynpovws refers to the celebration of 
the Supper and the behaviour of the women, xara ragw to the 
exercise of the gifts. 

In these three chapters (xii.-xiv.) the Apostle has been 
contending with the danger of sfiritwal anarchy, which would be 
the result if every Christian who believed that he had a charisma 
were allowed to exercise it without consideration for others. He 
passes on to the danger of one form of philosophic scepticism,— 
doubt as to the possibility of resurrection. 


XV. THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF 
THE DEAD. 


Having treated of various social, moral, ecclesiastical, and 
liturgical questions, the Apostle now takes up a doctrinal one, 
which he has kept to the last because of its vital importance. 


* uh kwdvere cannot mean ‘cease to hinder,’ for they had been too eager 
to encourage speaking with Tongues. Perhaps the previous {\odre has 
caused the pres. imperat. to be used. Or, St Paul may be alluding to his 
own apparent discouragement of the exercise of this gift. ‘Do not, in conse- 
quence of what I have said, attempt to hinder.” Comp. ui dpéder, wndevi 
émirlOe, unde Kowdvec (I Tim. iv. 14, v. 22), where ‘cease to’ seems to be 
quite out of place. J. H. Moulton, Gy. p. 125. 

+ Calvin suggests that St Paul did not wish to treat of so momentous a 
subject until, by the rebukes and exhortations of the previous chapters, he 
had brought the Corinthians to a proper state of mind, 


XV. | RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 329 


The Epistle begins with the subject of Christ Crucified (i. 13- 
ii. 5); it ends with that of Christ Risen (xv.). This chapter 
has been called “the earliest Christian doctrinal essay,” and it 
is the only part of the letter which deals directly with doctrine. 
There is here no trace of a question asked by the Cor- 
inthians: this subject St Paul starts himself, in consequence 
of information which has reached him. ‘Thus the letter begins 
and ends in a similar way. At the outset he treated of a 
subject which had been reported to him (i. 11), and he closes 
with one which again was suggested by what he had heard 
(v. 12),—that there were certain people at Corinth who denied 
the doctrine of the Resurrection. Who these persons were 
we do not know; but it is very improbable that they were 
converts who had originally been Saddutées, and who still 
retained some of their Sadducean leanings. The Corinthian 
Church was mainly a Gentile Church; and the errors with 
which the Apostle has been dealing were of Greek rather than 
Jewish origin. The Book of Daniel and Isaiah xxiv.—xxvii., 
with other passages in the O.T., had made the Jew familiar 
with the doctrine of the bodily resurrection of individuals, at 
any rate of individual Jews; but to the Greeks, even to those 
who accepted the immortality of the soul, the idea of a bodily 
resurrection was foolishness.* We shall be safe in concluding 
that the sceptics alluded to in v. 12 were Greeks and not Jews. 
The gentleness of tone with which the preceding section 
closed is continued. The Apostle is anxious not to give 
offence. With gentle words he goes back to teaching of which 
they have already experienced the value, and disclaims all 
originality respecting it. He has merely passed on to them 
what he himself, on the highest authority, received. ‘‘There 
is no historical fact more certain,” says Harnack, “than that 
the Apostle Paul was not the first to emphasize so prominently 
the significance of Christ’s Death and Resurrection, but that 
in recognizing their meaning he stood exactly on the same 
ground as the primitive community” (What ts Christianity? 
Tc» 
a ie chapter contains three sections, each of which is 
capable of subdivision, and perhaps some of these subdivisions 
are almost as important as the three sections, which are these ; 
(1) The Resurrection of Christ is an Essential Article of the 
Gospel, 1-11. (2) If Christ is risen, the Dead in Christ will 





* See Acts xvii. 18, 32, and St Paul’s speech in the Areopagus (22-31), 
‘the most wonderful passage in the Book of Acts: in a higher sense (and 
probably in a strictly historical sense at some vital points) it is full of truth” 
(Harnack, Zhe Mission and Expansion of Christianity, i. p. 383; comp. 
p- 88). 


330 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS | XV. 1-11 


rise, 12-34. (3) Answers to Objections; the Nature of the 
Body of the Risen, 35-58. The conclusion reached in vv. 1-34 
is that Christianity stands or falls with the fact of the Resurrec- 
tion. The conclusion of the whole is that Victory over Death 
has been won, and that Christians must live in accordance 
with this certainty. See Swete, Zhe Ascended Christ, pp. 163 f. 


XV. 1-11. The Resurrection of Christ is an Essential 
Article of the Gospel. 


Here we have three subdivisions ; (2) The Creed delivered 
to the Corinthians by St Paul, 1-4; (4) The Official Witnesses 
of the Resurrection of Christ,’ ¢é—8 ; (c) The Agreement between 
St Paul and the other Apostles respecting this Creed, g—11. 


The substance of my preaching has been and ts the 
historical fact of the Resurrection of Christ, which was 
predicted in Scripture, and ts vouched for by competent 
witnesses, most of whom are still living. Among these are 
the other Apostles and myself; and, greatly as they differ 
Jrom me in calling and work, we are absolutely agreed 
about this. 


1 Now I have to remind you, Brothers, of the purport of 
the Glad-tidings with which I once gladdened you, which also 
you then received, in which also you now stand firm, 2 by 
means of which also you are in the way of salvation, if you 
are holding fast the Gospel with which I gladdened you,— 

unless, of course, you became Christians without thinking of 
the faith which you professed. ®You remember the purport 
“of my preaching; for I handed on to you in the forefront of 
everything what was no invention of my own, but what I also 
received, that Christ died for our sins, as the Scriptures have 
predicted, #and that He was buried, and that He has been 
raised from the dead—on the third day, as the Scriptures have 
predicted; 5and that He appeared to Kephas, then to the 
Twelve. © Afterwards He appeared to upwards of five hundred 
brethren at once, the majority of whom survive to the present 
day, but some have gone to their rest. 7 Next He appeared 
to James; then to the Apostles in a body: 8and last of all, 
just as if to the untimely-born Apostle, He appeared also to 
me. *ForI am the very least of the Apostles, and I am not 


By, 1,3] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 331 


fit to have the name of an Apostle, because I persecuted the 
Church, the Church of God. 1! But by the grace of God I 
have been made equal to being an Apostle; and His grace, 
which reached even to me, did not prove ineffectual. Quite 
the contrary ; I toiled more effectually than all of them: yet 
not I, of course; it was the grace of God working with me. 
1 Well, it is of no importance whether I or the other Apostles 
laboured more effectually: what does matter is this, that we 
all continue to preach the Death and Resurrection of Christ, 
and it was the Death and Resurrection of Christ that, at your 
conversion, you accepted and believed. 


1, 2. Fvwpitw 8é spiv. ‘Now I proceed to make known 
to you the Good-tidings (Isa. lil. 7) which I once brought to 
you, the Good-tidings which ye received, the Good-tidings in 
which ye stand firm, the Good-tidings by which ye are being 
saved. . ‘The xat . ... Kat’... Kalos. «48 a Climax, aAnGw in 
English a repetition of the substantive gives the effect better 
than a repetition of the conjunction. Stanley follows Theodoret 
in making yvopilw = dvapiprvyoxw, ‘I remind you,’ with which 
Chrysostom seems to agree. They had forgotten their own 
belief, so he has to_call their attention to it. But yvwpilo is 
simply ‘I make known,’ xofum facto (Vulg.), and is often used 
in the N.T. of preaching the Gospel. There is a gentle reproach 
in the word. He has to begin again and teach them an 
elementary fact, which they had already accepted. He can 
claim themselves as witnesses to its truth and efficacy. In the 
Pauline Epp. both yv. tiv (xii. 3; Gal. i. 11; 2 Cor. viii. 1) 
and evayyeAvov evayyeAiCopae (ix. 18; Gal. 1. 11; 2 Cor. xi. 7) 
are peculiar to this group. The latter is an attractive expres- 
sion, emphasizing the goodness and gladness of the message; 
but the repetition cannot well be reproduced in English: see 
above. The verses here are badly divided. 

& Kal mapedaBete x.7.A. He adduces three proofs that their 
own experience has shown to them the value of his doctrine: 
mapeAaBere looks to the past, éoryxare to the present, owlecbe 
to what is being done for the future. They accepted his 
teaching; in it they stand with a firm foothold; and they 
are thus among ot owldpevor (i. 18; Acts ii. 473; 2 Cor. ii. 15), 
those who are in the way of salvation. Compare Eph. i. 13. 
Quite incidentally (vi+4), the Apostle has previously assumed 
that the doctrine of Christ’s Resurrection and our consequent 
resurrection is admitted. See C. H. Robinson, Studies in the 
Resurrection of Christ, pp. 38f. and sof.; F. H. Chase, 
Cambridge Theological Essays, pp. 391 ff. 





332 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV.1-3 


Tin Adyw ednyyedoduny Splv ei karéxere. ‘If ye are holding 
fast with what word I preached it to you.’ Not @ Adye, ‘the 
word with which,’ but riév A., ‘with what word,’ the Adyos cover- 
ing both the form and the substance of his teaching. Their 
standing erect in the way of salvation depends upon their 
keeping a firm hold (xi. 2) on what he taught and the very 
expressions which he used: guo sermone (Beza), rather than 
gua ratione (Vulg.), or guo pacto (Calv.). In xi. 2 he affirms 
that they are holding fast the traditions of doctrine and dis- 
cipline ; here he puts it hypothetically, and ei xaréyere is displaced 
in order to give an emphatic position to tive XA, ebyyy. Such 
inversions of order are common. Blass, however, § 80. 6, thinks 
this very awkward. 

The RV. takes rive Adyw differently ; ‘7 make known, J say, 
in what words I preached it unto you, if ye hold it fast.’ But 
this is scarcely tenable. St Paul’s making known could not 
depend on their holding fast: he writes what he pleases, 
whatever their condition may be.* 

€xtos el pi) etki emotedcate. ‘With this proviso—unless 
ye believed haphazard’: see on xiv. 5. There are two defects 
possible ; they may not be holding fast what he taught, or 
they may have received it (0 hastily that they do not com- 
prehend it. Belief adopted in a hurry is not likely to be very 
sure. He begins the discussion with this fear respecting them, 
and he ends it with a charge to be steadfast and unshifted 
(v. 58). Eixj is not ‘in vain’ (AV., RV.), nor ‘without cause’ 
(RV. marg.), but ‘without consideration,’ ‘heedlessly,’ ‘rashly’ ; 


temere rather than /rustra.t This €éxros et py eixy states a 


misgiving which lies at the back of the whole chapter. Has 
the conversion of the Corinthians been superficial and unreal? 
Was it a shallow enthusiasm, or a passing fancy for some new 
thing? See Evans and Edwards on eixy. Ellicott and others 
prefer ‘in vain.’ 


3. mapédwxa ydp bytvy év mpdrots. ‘For I delivered to you 
(xi. 2) in the foremost place (Gen. xxxili. 2) what I also received.’ 
Foremost in importance, not in time; the doctrine of the 
Resurrection is primary and cardinal, central and indispensable. 
The yap may look back either to yvwpifw ipiv, or (better) to 
tiv. Adyw, ‘You remember ow I preached, for.’ St Paul 
lingers over this preface, gua eos quasi suspensos tenet (Beng.). 


* The reading delete xaréxew (D* F, g, Ambrst.) for ef xaréxere is an 
attempt to simplify the construction: so also is the conjecture of 6 for el. 

f of mpds Kaipov miorevovres kal ev Kaipy meipacuod ddisrduevor, elkp 
muorevouct (Origen). 

Many scholars prefer elx# to elkg. The orthography is not important. 


— 


XV. 3} RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 333 


What follows is almost a creed; but we need not suppose that 
it had already been formulated. Rather, this passage supplied 
material for the formulating of creeds. 

& kat mapédaBov. ‘Which also I received.’ Nothing is 
said as to the source from which he received it, or the wa 
in which the communication was made. It is fosszble that he 
received it from Christ by special revelation; but this is even 
less probable than in xi. 23 (see notes there). Here there is 
neither €y® nor dd tod Kvupiov to emphasize the authority 
either of the person who made the communication or of the 
Source from which he derived it. Neither of these is the 
question here. The point is that St Paul did not invent what 
he communicated to them ; he received just what they received. 
The xa indicates the exact agreement of what he received with 
what he passed on to them. He appeals (vv. 5-7) to human 
testimony prior to his own experience, and it is reasonable to 
suppose that this is what is implied in wapéAaBov. In any case, 
it is clear that he does not appeal to documents either here or 
in xi. 23. St Paul knows nothing of written Gospels; and 6 kat 
mapéAaBov seems to refer to something quite different from 
OpOyn kapot (v. 8). And he knows nothing of a formulated 
Creed, neither in Rom. vi. 17, ‘the standard of teaching to 
which ye were committed,’ nor in 2 Tim. 1. 13, ‘the pattern of 
sound words which thou hast heard from me.’ See Dobschiitz, 
Probleme, pp. 11, 106. He received the facts from the Apostles 
and others; the import of the facts was made known to him 
by Christ (Gal. i. 12). 

amréBavev omep Tov Gpaptiav ypav. ‘He died for our sins,’ _ 
z.e. ‘on account of our sins,’ not ‘on behalf of them,’ which 
is hardly sense. One may die on behalf of sinners, but hardly 
on behalf of sins (2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ; Gal. ili. 13). On the whole, 
epi is used of things, rod dovros éavtov rept Tay dpapTiav Apov 
(Gal. i. 14, where see Lightfoot), and izép of persons, Xpiorés 
amaé rept dpapriav areBavev, Sixatos brép adikwv (1 Pet. iii. 18), 
but exceptions abound. Neither preposition implies vicarious 
action, which would require avri, but vicarious action may be 
implied in the context. Pro peccatis nostris abolendis (Beng.) 
gives the right meaning. There is a real connexion, beyond 
our comprehension, between Christ’s death and the forgiveness 
of men’s sins. This is in agreement with the O.T. (Isa. liii. 
4-12), and this agreement is part of the evayyéAvov which St Paul 
proclaimed to them. Nowhere else does he use the expression 
brép tT. dpaptiav: comp. Gal. il. 20; Eph. v. 2, 25; Tit. ii. 14. 
See Knowling, Messianic Interpretation, pp. go f. 

kata tas ypadds. The double appeal to Scripture in so 
brief a statement is deliberate and important; and the divine 


334 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XvV. 3 


prediction of what would take place is appropriately placed 
before the Apostolic testimony as to what did take place. The 
agreement of what did take place with what was foretold in 
Scripture is pointed out with special frequency in the writings 
of St Luke (xxii. 37, xxiv. 25-27, 44-46; Acts il. 25-27, ili. 35, 
Xill. 34, 35, XVii. 3, xvill. 28). See Cyril, Cat. Lect. xiv., which 
is a commentary on these verses. 

kat Ort érdpy. The inclusion of this detail in so brief a state- 
ment of facts is remarkable. But the burial is carefully recorded 
in all four Gospels, and was evidently tegarded as of importance. 
The importance there and here is that the burial was evidence 
of a bodily resurrection. The body was laid in the tomb, and 
the tomb was afterwards found to be empty.* 

kal Ort éynyeptar. ‘And that He hath been raised—on the 
third day.’ Change from aorists of what took place once for 
all to the perfect _of a_result which abides; He remains alive as 
the Risen One. By death and burial He came down to our 
level, by Resurrection He raised us to His: mortuus est iste 
nobiscum, ut nos cum ipso resurgamus (Calv.). ‘On the third 
day’ does not harmonize well with a perfect, but it is added as 
of importance (1) as evidence of a bodily resurrection (comp. 
Acts ii. 24f.), and (2) to show the exact coincidence with 
prophecy (Hos. vi. 2; comp. Ps. xvi. 10, 11; xvii. 15-24). 
Christ is said to have included ‘on the third day’ in what was 
predicted in Scripture (Luke xxiv. 46).¢ Matt. xii. 40 cannot 
safely be quoted here, for there are strong reasons for believing 
that there we have the Evangelist’s misunderstanding of Christ’s 
words rather than the words themselves. Christ was not three 
days and three nights in the grave. See Allen ad /oc. “In any 
case we have here irresistible evidence that this difficult clause, 
‘raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures’ 
formed part of the earliest Christian creed; and its difficulty, 


* The connexion between the Body which disappeared from the tomb and 
the Body which the disciples afterwards saw and were told to handle is beyond 
our comprehension. See Latham, 7he Risen Master, p. 73- 

+ There 77 rpiry huépe is the right reading ; but here the more emphatic 
TH MMEpa TH TelTy (RABDE17, Cyr.) is right. ‘‘The ‘third day’ is 
hardly less firmly rooted in the tradition of the Church than the Resurrection 
itself. We have it not only in the speech ascribed to St Peter (Acts x. 40), 
but in the central testimony of St Paul, and then in the oldest form of the 
Apostles’ Creed. It is strange that so slight a detail should have been pre- 
served at all, and still stranger that it should hold the place it does in the 
standard of the Church’s faith” (Sanday, Oudé/ines of the Life of Christ, 
p. 183). Matt. xii. 4o is evidence of the Evangelist’s belief in it and estimate 
of its importance. See J. H. Moulton, Gr. pp. 137, 141; Knowling, Zés¢. 
of St Paul to Christ, p. 307. Max Krenkel (Beztrage z. Aufhellung d. Ge- 
schichte u. d. Briefe d. Ap. Paulus, pp. 385 f.) thinks that 2 Kings xx. 5 was 
regarded as a prophecy of resurrection on the third day. 


XV. 3-5] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 335 


and its antiquity, justify the conviction that the words proceeded 
from Christ Himself” (Abbott, Ze Son of Man, p. 188 ; see also 
pp. 186, 200). 


5-8. We now have a list of the official Witnesses to the 
Resurrection of Christ, beginning with the first of the Apostles 
and ending with ‘the least’ of them. The form of the sentence 
shows that at least the first two on the list, St Peter and the 
Twelve, had been quoted by St Paul to the Corinthians. Very 
likely the others had been quoted also, although the cessation 
of the oz after v. 5 (perhaps simply to end a prolix sentence) 
leaves this doubtful. Of course St Paul had told them of his 
own experiences respecting the Risen Christ; and he probably 
knew of other witnesses not mentioned here. See Thorburn, 
The Resurrection Narratives and Modern Criticism, pp. 86 f. 


5. kat Ste GhOyn KynpaG. ‘And that He appeared to Kephas.’ 
The coincidence with the incidental remark Luke xxiv. 34 
(comp. Mark. xvi. 7) is noteworthy. Peter is first in all the 
four lists of the Apostles, and is expressly designated as aparos 


in Matt. x. 2 For this reason a special appearance to him 
would be natural. But we may venture to say that his denial 
of his Lord and consequent dejection ma 2 


ae necessary. He needed to be absolved and restored. 
When hé~and John ran to the sepulchre after the tidings 


brought by Mary Magdalen, John believed, but apparently 
Peter did not, that the Lord had risen. And then the Lord 
appeared to him, and the completeness of his restoration was 
brought home to him by the fact that he was allowed to be 
the means of convincing the other Apostles (Luke xxii. 32) that 
the Lord had risen indeed, because He had appeared to Simon 
(Luke xxiv. 34). ‘‘The Apostle who had risen from his fall 
through the words of absolution that came from the Risen 
Christ was the first to bring the Gospel of the Resurrection 
home to the hearts of his fellows” (Swete, Zhe Appearances of 
our Lord after the Passion, p. 16).* St Paul no doubt received | 
‘this testimony from St Peter himself, when some eight years ” 
after the Resurrection he ‘went up to Jerusalem to make the 

* Chrysostom says that Kephas is placed first here as being tov mdvrwv 
dfvorvsrérepov, and that it was likely that Christ would appear to him first 
among males, because he had been the first to confess Him as the Messiah, 
and becaypse he desired so much to see Him again. Although St Paul 
ignores the non-official testimony of the women who visited the sepulchre, he 
does not say that the Lord appeared first to Peter. Nota guia non divit 
primo visus est Cephae (Atto). But the way in which he speaks of Peter 
shows that he does not consider Peter as one of Kephas party, who are con- 
demned ini. 12 (Zahn, /ntrod. to N.7. i. p. 283). Seealso A. T. Robertson, 
Epochs in the Life of St Paul, pp. 81, 82; Burkitt, Zar/iest Sources for the 


Life of Jesus, p. 71. 


336 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 5, 6 


acquaintance of Kephas’ (ioropjaa Kydav, Gal. i. 18), and 
spent a fortnight with him. Henceforward, ‘He appeared to 
Kephas’ was part of St Paul’s own testimony respecting the 
Resurrection. It was during the same fortnight that St Paul 
had also seen ‘James, the Lord’s brother,’ and therefore was 
able to give the testimony which he had received at first hand 
from him also (v. 7). Both Peter and James had great weight 
‘with the party at Corinth which was opposed to St Paul. The 
Kephas party of course appealed to Kephas (i._12), and it is 
probable that the Christ party appealed to the Lord’s brother. 

Excepting St John (i. 43), St Paul is the only N.T. writer 
who uses the Aramaic name ‘Kephas’ of the first Apostle, 
always in this letter (i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5), and usually in 
Gal. (i. 18, ii. 9, 11, 14), the only letters in which he mentions 
Peter, whom he calls ‘ Peter’ twice (Gal. ii. 7, 8). 
bein meaning of wp6y is determined by the context; either 
‘was seen by, or fappeared in a vision te. Here éyyyeptac 
decides. for the former. Moreover, a mére vision would not 
make our being raised more probable; it was Christ’s having 
been raised and having been seen by competent witnesses that 
did that. The appearances to Mary Magdalen and to the two 
on the way to Emmaus are not mentioned, as not being official. 
St John does not count either of them when he counts three 
manifestations (€pavepwOn) of Jesus to His disciples (xxi. 14), 
although he himself narrates the manifestation to Mary in much 
detail (xx.11-18). Besides d¢6y and edavepa6y, we have also 
_ehavepwoev éavtov (John xxi. 1) and é¢avy [Mark] xvi. 9) used 
of these appearances of Christ. 

eita tois SHSexa. ‘The Twelve’ is here an official name for 
the Apostolic body: only ten were present, for both Judas and 
Thomas were away. Similarly, the decemviri and centumvirt 
were so called, whatever the exact number may have been. 
The name centumviri was retained after the number was increased 
beyond the hundred. Origen and Chrysostom needlessly con- 
jecture that, after the Ascension, our Lord appeared to Matthias ; 
and even that would not affect this statement. 

In vv. 5, 6 there is frequent confusion in the MSS. between el7a and 
ére:cra. Here, elra (B K L P) is to be preferred to ére:ra (§ A 17, Eus. 
Chrys.) or kal wera traira (D* FG). évdexa (D* FG, Latt. Goth.) for 
dwdexa (NX A BK LP, Syrr. Copt. Aeth.) is a manifest correction. St Paul 


nowhere else speaks of ‘the Twelve,’ and here he is repeating a traditional 
formula: Rev. xxi. 14; Matt. xix. 28; Acts visr2. 


6. émeita dhOn érdvw trevtakogias adeApots apdmat. L//ustris 
apparitio (Beng.). The dr is now dropped, probably to simplify 
the construction. It is likely that St Paul had previously cited 
this instance to the Corinthians; it was one which they could 


XV. 6, 7] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 337 


easily verify, as so many of the witnesses survived. The occasion’ 
of the appearance to the 500 is unknown; but it is probably to) 
be identified with Matt. xxviii. 16, where only the Eleven are 
mentioned, because only to them was the great commission 
(18-20) given, although the presence of others seems to be 
implied in ‘some doubted.’ St Paul naturally mentions the 
large number of witnesses. See Swete, Appearances of our Lord, 
pp. 82, 83; Ellicott, Zife of our Lord, Lect. viii. p. 410; 
Andrews, Life of our Lord, p. 628.* 
When é7dyw qualifies a cardinal number, the cardinal retains its own 

case: it is not governed by émdvw. In Mark xiv. 5, rpraxoolwy Snvaplow 

is the genitive of price. Moul.-Win. p. 313. Chrysostom interprets érdvw 

as dvw éx T&v olpavGv’ ob yap éml ys Badifwr, adN dvw, kal Urep kepadijs 

avrots ®p0y, which cannot be right. //us guam (Vulg.) is certainly the} f 

meaning. And é¢dzaé clearly does not mean ‘once for all’ (Rom. vi. 10; | 

Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12), but ‘at once,’ szmz/ (Vulg.). 


ol mAeloves pevougi €ws apt. ‘The majority survive until now,’ 
abide upon earth (Phil. i. 25; John xxi. 22). Those who had 
seen Christ after the Resurrection would soon become marked 
men. He had doubtless found most of His disciples among the 
younger generation; hence the large number who were still 
living more than twenty-five years after the Ascension, and 
could be questioned: ¢o significat, non allegoricam sed veram et 
naturalem fuisse resurrectionem,; nam spiritualis resurrectiontis 
oculi testes esse non possunt (Calv.). 

tives S€ €xotpyPycav. While he speaks of his own life as ay) 

daily dying (zv. 31), he speaks of actual death as a sleep. T he 
expression is common both in Jewish and heathen literature, 
and does not of itself imply any belief in a future life. The 
resemblance between “Death and his brother Sleep” (Virg. 
Aen. vi. 278) is too obvious to escape notice. Nevertheless, it 
was because the word suggested a future awakening that Christians 
adopted it, and it has special point here: see on xi. 30, and 
Ellicott and Milligan on 1 Thess. iv. 13. A poetic euphemism 
. contains a blessed truth. These tees had seen the Risen One 
,and believed in Him, and had died in this faith. If there was 

no resurrection in store for them, how strange was their lot ! 

ery (SABDEFG) KLP read mheiovs. K LP also add 
kal after rwés 5é,and K adds é€& airGv. Correctors of 8 A D ins. the xat, 
with Orig. Eus. Chrys. and others ; but it is not likely to be genuine. On 

the use of the aorist here, ‘fell asleep (at various times),’ and therefore * 

‘have fallen asleep,’ see J. H. Moulton, p. 136. Ps 

7. €mecta &h0y VaxiBw. Nothing is known of this appear-|~— 
ance, or as to which James is meant. But there is little doubt 

* Dobschiitz (Ostern und Pfingsten) would identify 1 Cor. xv. 6 and John 


xx. 21-23 with Acts ii. 1-4. The same event is the basis of all three passages, 
Could traditions have become so different in so short a time ? 


‘ 22 


338 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV.7 


that the James is the Lord’s brother, who became president of 
the Church in Jerusalem, and that he is placed here among the 
chief witnesses because of his high position at Jerusalem. There 
may also be another reason, viz. the resemblance between his 
case and that of St. Paul. Our Lord’s brethren had refused to 
believe on Him during His ministry (John vii. 5), but are found 
among believers after the Ascension (Acts i. 14). What con- 
verted them? ‘The appearance of the Risen Lord to the eldest 
of them may have done so, and the appearance may have been 
granted for this very purpose. In that case St James was con- 
verted in the same way as St Paul. Three years after his own 
conversion St Paul met the Lord’s brother at Jerusalem, and 
probably heard of this appearance from St James himself. Each 
told the other his experiences. But it may be doubted whether 
either James or Peter (v. 5) told St Paul what the Lord had said 
to him. In any case, such details are not needed here. What 
is of importance here is the fact that within ten years of the 
Resurrection St Paul had the opportunity of talking with St 
Peter and St James and comparing their experiences of the 
Risen Lord with his own, and that within thirty years of the 
Resurrection he records their testimony. For James and Peter 
see 1x. 5; Gal. 1. 18, 19, li. 9-12. 

For the narrative about an appearance to James recorded in 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Jerome, De Viris tllustr. 
2), see Nicholson, pp. 62 f.; Lightfoot, Ga/atians, pp. 265, 274; 
Swete, Appearances of our Lord, p. 89; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 
248f. The narrative may be mere legend; but if it is historical, 
it is not likely that St Paul is alluding here to what is there 
recorded. 

eita tots dmootédos Tacw. ‘Then to the whole body of the 
Apostles.’ There is no emphasis on zaow, which does not look 
back to ‘Iax#fw. The antithesis, ‘to one, then to a//,’ is false, 
for the zaow does not imply that James was an Apostle. He 
was not one of the Twelve, and it is unlikely that St Paul here 
thinks of him as an Apostle in the wider sense, an idea quite 
foreign to the context. The meaning here is, ‘then to the 
Apostolic body_as_a_whole,’ Thomas being now present. The 
addition of zaéow here confirms the view that rots ddexa (v. 5) 
is (official and not numerical.*) As St Paul at once passes on 


* «That the Twelve henceforth rank in history as the Twelve Apostles, 
and in fact as /he Apostles, was a result brought about by St Paul; and, para- 
doxically enough, this was brought about by him in the very effort to fix the 
value of his own Apostleship. He certainly did not work out this conception, 
for he neither could nor would give up the more general conception of the 
Apostleship. . . . St Paul holds fast to the wider conception of the Apostolate, 
but the twelve disciples form in his view the original nucleus” (Harnack, 
The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, i. p. 323; Pp. 232, ed. 1902). 


XV. 7, 8] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 339 


to the appearance to himself, he evidently means this manifesta- 
tion to the whole body of the Apostles as the final one to others, 
viz. at the time of the Ascension. The conjecture of wdAw for 
macw is unnecessary. 

Respecting St Paul’s testimony, Professor Percy Gardner 
remarks; “As regards his own life, and the phenomena of 
Christianity which came under his direct observation, he is as 
good an authority as we can have in regard to any events in 
ancient history. . . . However confused and inconsistent may 
be the accounts in the Gospels of the appearances of the risen 
Lord, there can be no doubt that the society believed such 
appearances to have taken place. No other cause can be 
suggested for the sudden change in the minds of the disciples 
from consternation and terror to confidence and boldness. And 
the well-known Pauline passage as to the witnesses of the 
‘ Resurrection is as historic evidence of the belief of the first 
disciples unimpeachable. Paul himself claims with perfect 
confidence that he has seen the risen Lord” (Aibbert Journal 


Supplement, 1909, pp. 49, 51). 


8. éoxatov dé mdvTwy doreEpel TH Extpdpat. GhOyn Kapot. ‘But 
last of all, as if to the abortion (of the Apostolic family), He 
appeared also to me.’ As in Mark xii. 22, there is a doubt 
whether wdvrwy is masc. or neut. After a series of persons (5-7) 
the masc. is more probable; and écyaroy is used adverbially, 
like torepov. Nowhere else in N.T. or LXX does éomeped occur : 
in a few texts it is a v./. in iv. 13. In calling himself the extpwya 
among the Apostles, he refers to the suddenness and violence of 
the transition (extitpwoxw), while he was still in a state of im- 
maturity.* The Twelve were disciples of Jesus before He called 
them to be Apostles, and He trained them for promotion: Saul 
was suddenly torn from opposition to Jesus to become His 
Apostle. Theirs was a gradual and normal progress; his was 
a swift and abnormal change. Possibly his Jewish adversaries 
had called him an abortion, an insult to which his small stature 
may have given a handle; but no such hypothesis is needed to 
account for the use of the expression here. It indicates his 
intense feeling respecting the errors of his career previous to 
his conversion. For the word, comp. Num. xii. 12; Job iii. 16; 


* The proposal to read tw (=r) instead of r@ need not be seriously 
considered : context and usage are against it. 

Sicut abortivus quadam naturae violentia ante tempus compellitur nasct, 
tta ego par terribilem Domini vistonem et lumints oculorum amissionem co- 
actus sum, anteguam vellem, exire de caeco synagogae utero, et ad lucem fillet 
atque libertatem prodire (Werveius). Primasius adds a stronger point of 
similarity ; mortua matre vivus educttur, The Judaism from which he was 
so violently taken was a defunct religion, 


340 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE:-CORINTHIANS [XV. 8,9 


Eccles. vi. 3; and see Suicer, i. p. 1073; Lightfoot on Ign. 
Rom. 9. 

St Paul uses the same word,-o6y, of the appearances to 
himself as he uses of the appearances to the others. He regards 
it as the same in kind. He saw the Risen Lord as really as 
they did. "The Lord appeared to him at other times (Acts 
xxii. 18 ; comp. xvili. 9, xxvii. 23 ; 2 Cor. xii. 2-4), but doubtless 
it is the appearance on the way to Damascus that is meant here. 
“There is no greater life in history than that which S. Paul 
spent in the service of Christ, and it was what it was because 
S. Paul believed from the bottom of his heart that Jesus had 
appeared to him from heaven and sent Him to do His work” 
(Swete, Appearances, p. 126). On this unique occasion God 
chose him ‘to see the Righteous one, and to hear a voice from 
His mouth’ (Acts xxii. 14), and his whole work as an Apostle 
was built upon that.* See Thorburn, pp. 83, 85. 

The xdapot comes at the end with deep humility: ‘to me 
also.’ This appearance to the Apostle of the Gentiles completed 
the official evidence. He evidently knew of no later manifesta- 
tion, and that to St John in Patmos was after St Paul’s death. 
The fact that the manifestations had ended with the one to 
St Paul is against the theory of hallucinations. If all the 
appearances had been hallucinations, they would probably have 
continued, for such things are infectious, because people see 
what they expect to see. But neither the Twelve nor St Paul 
expected to see the Risen Lord, and some of them for a time 

- doubted, not only the statements of others, but the evidence of 
their own eyes, for it seemed to be far too good to be true. 


tis important to notice that two of the witnesses cited in 
this Hst_St-James_and_St Paul_himsell fad_previously_been 
unbelievers. Indeed, St Paul had not only refused to believe 
that Jesus was the Messiah, but had strenuously persecuted 


those who accepted Him as such. Afterwards, the intensity of 

his conviction that he ‘had seen the Lord’ became “the deter- 

mining factor in St Paul’s theology.” See Inge, in Camdbridge 

Biblical Essays, p. 267. It is also remarkable that he does not 
) 4mention the appearance to St Stephen (Acts vii. 55, 56). It 
Vi | Was not “ official.” ‘. 


9-11. The status of St Paul as one of the Apostles, and their 
absolute agreement with him with regard to the fundamental 
doctrine of the Resurrection. Different as they were from him 
in other things,—they before him in Apostleship, he before them 

* 1 west pas un seul critique, aujourd hut, qui ne reconnaisse gue Paul a 


eardé toute sa vie, la ferme conviction @avoir été le temoin @une apparition 
extérieure du Christ ressuscité (A. Sabatier, ZL’ Apéitre Paul, p. 46). 


XV. 9, 10} RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 34! 


in labours,—they and he were wholly agreed in preaching this, 
uno ore, omnes Apostoli (Beng.). 


9. "Ey ydp eipt o €Xdyiotos tT. dw. Explanation of the strong 
word éxtpwya, given with much emphasis. In eAdyuoros there is 
no reference to ‘ Paulus’ =‘ little.’ See Eph. iii. 8; 1 Tim. i, 15. 
Both names, Saul and Paul, were probably given him by his 
parents, in accordance with Jewish custom, which still prevails, 
of giving a child two names, one religious and one secular. Like 
his namesake he was a Benjamite. Saul the son of Kish was 
THS Prdys THs eXaxioryns (1 Sam. ix. 21). 

ds ov eipt ixavds. As distinguished from détos, tkavéds= 
‘reaching up to,’ ‘competent,’ ‘adequate’ (2 Cor. ii. 16) rather 
than ‘ meriting,’ but when moral sufficiency is meant the differ- 
ence is not great. Comp. Matt. iil, 11 (= Mark i. 7) with 
John i. 27. This is the argumentative use of the relative; 
‘seeing that I am not fit to be called an Apostle.’ Comp. Rom. 
ix. 25; Heb. ii. 11. The violent éxtpwous was rendered necessary 
by his having been a persecutor. This blot in his past life he 
never forgot: Gal. i. 13; 1 Tim. i. 12-14; Acts xxvi. 9.* For 
TH exkAnoiav Tod @eod see On xi. 22. The addition of rod @ecod 
prepares for what follows. 


10. xdpite Sé€ Oeod eipt 6 eiut. ‘But by God’s grace I am 
what I am ’—an Apostle who has seen the Lord and laboured 
fruitfully for Him. In spite of his unfitness to bear the name, 
the grace of God has made him equal to it. The persecutor has 
been forgiven and the abortion adopted. On the eleventh Sunday 
after Trinity this humble boast of Paul the Pharisee is placed 
side by side with the arrogant boast of the typical Pharisee. 

Hels ene od Kevh eyevny. ‘Which was manifested towards 
me’ (or, was extended to me), ‘did not prove empty,’ z.e. fruitless, 
without result; or perhaps, ‘did not turn out to be worthless.’ 
Comp. vv. 14, 58; eis xévov, Phil. ii. 16; 1 Thess. iii. 5 ; parada, 
v. 17.F 

é\dd. ‘So far from that being the case, I laboured more 
abundantly than they all.’ This may mean either (1) ‘than all of 
them together,’ or (2) ‘than any one of them (xiv. 18).’ Though 
(1) seems extravagant, it may be the meaning, seeing that God’s 


* Le souvenir @avoir persécuté cette Eglise de Dieu est resté pour Paul, 
durant toute sa vie, le sujet dune douloureuse humiliation. Il sen afflige 
comme Sil avait persécuté le Seigneur lui-méme (Sabatier, L’ Apétre Paul, 
p. 8). Both Luke (Acts ix. 21) and Paul (Gal. i. 13, 23) use mop0ety as well 
as dudxew of Saul’s destructive work. No other N.T. writer uses ropOetv. 

+ The Vulg. is capricious in its translation of xevés. Nearly always it has 
inanis (vv. 14, 58; Eph. v. 6; Col. ii. 8, etc.), but here and Mark xii. 3 it 
has vacuus, although in Luke xx. 10 it has zvanzs: pdratos is always vanus 
(iii. 20; Tit. iii. 9; Acts xiv. 5, etc.). 


342 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (XV. 10, 11 


grace is the chief cause of it. Apart from that, his energy and 
toil would have been without fruit (Rom. xv. 19). In himself 
he is greatly inferior to the Twelve ; in his work, which is God’s, 
greatly superior. His labour (xoros) means his work as a whole, 
including his success ; and his great success was evidence that he 
was an Apostle. See on xvi. 16. Thus his great work was 
evidence of the Resurrection, for it would never have been 
undertaken if the Risen Lord had not appeared to him, nor 
would it have had such results without His help. , 

NAG H xdpts TOO Oeod adv épot. ‘So far from its being I (alone) 
who did all this, it was the grace of God with me.’ There were 
two who laboured, two co-operators, grace with himself (Acts xiv. 
27); but it was grace which made the labour effective (Gal. ii. 20). 
The Apostle’s satisfaction with his own labours “from a human 
point of view is as the joy of a child who gives his father a birth- 
day present out of his father’s own money” (Weinel, p. 178). 
Dobschiitz (Probleme, p. 58) shows how true this estimate of his 
labours is. The reading 4 ovv éeuol (see below), which Calvin 
characteristically adopts, makes grace the sole worker; ‘not I, 
but the grace of God which was with me, did the abundant and 
fruitful work.’ Atto more reasonably says ; gutbus verbis, ‘ gratia 
Dei mecum, ostendit quia nec gratia sine libero arbitrio, nec liberum 
arbitrium sine gratia, hominis salutem operatur. So also Augus- 
tine; nec gratia Det sola, nec ipse solus, sed gratia cum illo. 


For od xevh éyevi}On, D* has rrwxh obk éyev7On, while F G have trax} 
od yéyoreyr, AEKLP have 7% adv éuol, but 8* BD* FG, Latt. Goth. 
omit 7. 


ll. etre ody éyd cite éxetvor, odtws x.t-A. ‘Whether then it 
were I or they (who laboured most abundantly after seeing the 
Risen Christ), so we continually preach (i. 23), and so ye once 
for all believed,’ when ye accepted the preaching. He does not 
mean that they had ceased to believe, but that there was a 
definite time when they accepted this belief as the result of 
Apostolic preaching. The oty resumes the main argument 
(vv. 3-8) after the digression (vv. 9, 10), and otrws looks back 
to rive Adyw. Evans, somewhat hesitatingly, questions this, and 
prefers to render oty ‘however.’ 

Harnack points out that ‘‘legends concerning the appear- 
ances of the Risen Christ and the Ascension are difficult to 
explain, on the assumption that they arose before the destruction 
of Jerusalem” (Zhe Acts of the Apostles, p. 291). It is quite 
clear from these verses that appearances of the Risen Christ 
were firmly believed in long before a.D. 70. Harnack himself 
places x Corinthians in A.D. 52 or 53. The inference is that the 
reports about the appearances were not “legends.” 


XV. 11] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 343 


There is nothing to show that St Paul meant this list of the appearances 
to be exhaustive, and that he mentions no others because he knew of no 
others. He omits five of the appearances which are mentioned in the 
Gospels: to the women, to Mary Magdalen, to the two on the way to 
Emmaus, to Thomas with the other Apostles on the second Lord’s Day, 
and to certain disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. He probably knew of some 
of these, if not of all. His reason for confining himself to those which he 
mentions can be easily conjectured. The witnesses whom he cites were 
persons well known to the Corinthians as leaders of the Church; Kephas, 
the Apostolic body, James. and himself; to which he adds a large company, 
some of whom could be easily found and questioned. The evidence would 
not have been strengthened by mentioning appearances to persons of whom 
the Corinthians had never heard. See F. H. Chase and A. J. Mason in 
Cambridge Theological Essays, pp. 396-401, 424-429; also J. O. F. 
Murray, pp. 329-332. - 

“Tt is curious that, in Paul’s time, it was the principle of the resurrec- 
tion which was denied by the Corinthians to whom he is writing, while the 
actual fact of the resurrection of Jesus was admitted. Now, it is the prin- 
ciple which is admitted, while the actual resurrection of Jesus is denied.” 
But the life and teaching of St Paul, and the evolution and continued 
existence of the Christian Church cannot be explained, if the belief in the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ was based on hallucination. Can any Christian 
believe that Christianity is built upon this fundamental error ? 

‘The reality of the resurrection is maintained, so long as the cause of 
the appearances of Jesus is attributed to Jesus, and not to the imaginations 
of the disciples. To the twentieth-century mind a spiritual manifestation 
seems open to less objection than the reanimation of the physical body 
which had been laid in the grave. We do not know, however, sufficient 
either of matter or spirit to justify any dogmatism either in the one direction 
or the other. The narratives will support either theory. The story of the 
empty tomb, however, certainly implies that the physical body of Jesus 
disappeared, though what finally became of it is not expressly explained. 
It must be admitted that the reanimation of the physical body of Jesus 
presents difficulties to the modern mind in the way of its final disposal 
which cannot lightly be ignored, The old conception of its literal ascension 
into heaven is in these days inconceivable. Our ignorance on this matter, 
however, ought not to invalidate the knowledge we undoubtedly possess of 
the empty tomb, nor ought we to allow the difficulty of accounting for the 
final disposal of the body to lead us to reject the plain story of its disappear- 
ance. Certainly, on the hypothesis of pure hallucinations, the speedy 
cessation of the appearances is a difficulty more easily ignored than ex- 
plained” ( 7he Fifth Gospel, pp. 169, 191-194). 


XV. 12-34. If Christ is risen, the Dead in Christ will rise. 


Here again we have three subdivisions: (a) The Conse- 
quences of denying the Doctrine of the Resurrection, 12-19; 
(6) The Consequences of accepting the Resurrection of Christ 
20-28 ; (c) Arguments from Experience, 29-34. 

How is tt that, in the face of this Apostolic proclamation, 
some people go about and declare that a resurrection of dead 
people is impossible ; thus making Apostolic preaching to be 
a lie, and your faith to be a delusion, and the condition of 


344 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 12-34 


dead Christians to be quite hopeless, and the condition of 
living Christians to be pitiable in the extreme ? 

But they are quite wrong; for Christ has risen, and 
therefore resurrection is for us certain. For in this matter 
Christ ts the first sheaf of a vast harvest; and when He 
has conquered all that opposes Him, including death itself, 
then, as the Son of God, He will yield up everything to Hts 
Father, and God will be supreme. 

Baptism for the sake of the dead would lose all its 
meaning, and Christian self-sacrifice would lose most of tts 
inspiration and comfort, if there were no resurrection and 
no future life. 


12Now, if Apostles are continually proclaiming Christ as 
having been raised from the dead, how is it that some are 
declaring among you that there is no such thing as a resurrection 
of dead people? If there is no such thing, then Christ Him- 
self cannot have been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been 
raised, then our proclamation of the Gospel is empty verbiage, 
and your faith in it is empty credulity. And, what is more, we 
are found -guilty of misrepresenting God, because we have repre- 
sented Him as having raised the Christ, whereas He did nothing 
of the kind, if as a matter of fact dead people are never raised. 
16 For it is quite clear that, if dead people are never raised, Christ 
Himself has not been raised. 17 And in that case your faith is 
futile ; you are still living in your sins. 1% Yes, and it follows 
that all those who went to their rest trusting in Christ, forthwith 
perished utterly and are now lost to Christ! 1*If our case is no 
better than this, that just in the present life we have had hope in 
Christ, there are no human beings more truly to be pitied than 
we are. 

20But this dismal doctrine is not true. Christ has been 
raised from the dead; and He is no solitary exception, but the 
first and foremost example of many that are to. be awakened. 
21 For since it is through a man that we have death, it is through 
a Man also that we have resurrection from the dead. * For as 
in virtue of our union with Adam we all die, so also in virtue of 
our union with Christ we shall all be made alive. °° But each in 
his proper order; Christ the first sheaf; afterwards Christ’s own 
harvest in the Day of His Coming. *4 After that will come the 


XV. 12} RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 345 


End, when He is to give up His Kingship into the hands of His 
God and Father; and that will be when He has brought to 
nought all other rule and all other authority and power. * For 
He must retain His Kingship until God has put all His enemies 
under His feet. *°The last foe to be brought to nought is 
death. 27 For God has put all things, death included, in sub- 
jection under Christ’s feet. (Now, when it is said that all things 
have been put in subjection to Christ, it is obvious that God, 
who put them thus in subjection, is not included.) °§ But when 
every power has been made subject to the Son, then, but not till 
then, even the Son Himself will become subject to the Father 
who put all things under Him, in order that God may be every- 
thing in every creature, and the Divine immanence be perfect 
and complete. 

29 Otherwise, what will be the position of those who from 
time to time are being baptized out of consideration for the 
dead? If dead men never rise at all, why in the world are 
people baptized out of consideration for them? °° And why do 
so many of us stand in peril every hour? *!I protest to you, my 
Brothers, as surely as I glory over you—and you know that I do 
that in Christ Jesus our Lord, there is not a day that I do not 
stand face to face with death. *If, looking at it from a purely 
human point of view, I was near being torn in pieces at 
Ephesus, what did I gain by it? If dead men do not rise, the 
human point of view gives as a practical inference, ‘ Let us eat 
and drink, for to-morrow we die.’ % Do not make the serious 
mistake of supposing that there is no risk in being friendly to 
these views and to those who advocate them. ‘ Fair characters 
are marred by foul companionships.’ % You must rouse your- 
selves from this paralysing delusion in a right spirit, and cease 
to persist in culpable error. You pride yourselves upon your 
religious enlightenment: crass ignorance as to the very meaning of 
God is what some of you have. It is to make you ashamed of 
yourselves that I speak like this. 


12. Ei 8€ Xpiords knpiooetar Str ek vexpOv eynyeptar «.T.A. 
‘Now if Christ is continually preached that He hath been raised 
from the dead, how comes it that it is said among you by some 
persons that resurrection of dead men does not take place?’* St 


* The reading ¢x v. dr1 éy. (DEF G) puts an unintelligible emphasis on 
ex vexpav. 


346 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 12 


Paul has just shown how full and unanimous is the testimony to 
the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, and from that solid basis 
he now passes on (é€) to the main question, using a current 
sceptical assertion as a text. It is one statement against 
another. On the one hand the declaration of all the Apostles, 
from the first to the last of them, and of many other eye- 
witnesses, that Christ has been raised and abides for ever as the 
Risen Lord (this is the force of the perfect éy#yeprac throughout 
the argument); on the other the @ priori dictum of certain 
cavillers, unsupported by any evidence, that there is no such 
thing as a resurrection of dead people. The latter position is 
analogous to the modern one; “ Miracles don’t happen.” 
Which will the Corinthians, who long ago accepted Apostolic 
preaching, hold to now? And a decision is necessary, for the 
conflict of statement continues. The Apostles continue to 
preach the Resurrection of Christ (xkypiccopev, kypvooerat), and 
the sceptics continue to assert (A€yovow) that resurrection is 
impossible. And this is the situation which has to be explained. 
If resurrection is impossible, how do you account for the large 
volume of testimony from official and unofficial witnesses, who 
are still alive to be questioned, that one resurrection has taken 
place? * It is possible that these teachers did not deny that 
Christ had risen; and if so, this indicates how strong they felt 
the evidence for it to be. They may have declared that His 
case was unique, and proved nothing as to the rest of mankind. 
But this the Apostle cannot allow. If it is certain that any one 
man has risen, then the position that resurrection is impossible 
is untenable. If Christ is risen, others can rise. Indeed, when 
His relation to mankind is considered, we may say that others 
will rise. Deny this consequent in either form, ‘“ Others will not 
rise,” or “Others cannot rise,” and you thereby deny the 
antecedent, “Christ is not risen.” ‘There is no escape from this 
logic ; but some Corinthians did not see it. 

It has been pointed out already that the reves were almost 
certainly Gentiles, brought up under the influence of Greek 
philosophy, not Jews with Sadducean prejudices. Possibly they 
held that matter was evil, and that it was incredible that a soul, 
once set free by death, would return to its unclean prison. 
Or they may have been influenced by a popular form of Epicurean 
materialism. They had been brought up in the belief that at 
death existence either ceases entirely, or becomes so shadowy as 


* This problem still remains. We do not free ourselves from difficulty by 
rejecting the Resurrection of Christ as unhistorical. How can we explain the 
origin of the evidence that He said that He would rise and of the evidence 
that He did rise? And how can we explain the existence of the Christian 
Church ? 


XV. 12, 13] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 347 


to be worthless: in any case the body perishes utterly. The 
idea of a glorified body, in which the highest part of man’s 
nature would be supreme, without opposition or hindrance from 
any other part, was beyond even Plato’s vision, and they could 
not attain to it. Aeschylus (Zwm. 647) makes Apollo say, 


> ny \ Ni > 5a AAS 3) 3, , / 
av pos €7TELOaV ALL avacTacy KOVLS 
9 i A » > 
ama&é Pavovtos, ovtis €or avdcraots. 


And that is just what these Corinthians declared. See also the 
view of Cebes (Plato, edo, 70 A). There is no evidence of 
such theories as those of Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 
ii; 77, 8). 

St Paul’s treatment of these dangerous doubters is to be 
noticed. He does not suggest that they should be excommuni- 
cated ; he argues with them through those who are in danger of 
being perverted by them. And in his arguments he is less 
severe than he is with some other victims of false teaching. The 
mas A€yovow here is more gentle than the indignant astonishment 
of @avpdlw dre ottTws Taxews petarierGe x.7.A. and *Q dvonror 

addra, tis buas €Bacxavey x.t.A. (Gal. i. 6, iii. 1). The mas 

reminds us rather of Gal. ii. 14, iv. 9; 1 John ili. 17: it ex- 
presses surprise at something incongruous. Moreover, he does 
not name these teachers of error; there is no need to brand 
them: compare iv. 18; 2 Cor. x. 2; Gal. 1. 7, ii. 12; Acts xv. 
24; and it is not likely that they are to be identified with any of 
the four parties in 1. 12. 

Xpwcrds is attracted from the dependent clause into the main sentence 
in order to make the word more prominent. Christ is the sum and 
substance of the Gospel, the central fact of which is His Resurrection. 
Throughout the passage vexpol has no article: it is not ‘the dead’ as a 
class that are under consideration, but individuals who are in this condition, 
‘dead persons,’ ‘dead men.’ 

év buiv twés (XN ABP 17, Syrr., Orig. Chrys.) is to be preferred to tives 


ev tulv (DEF GKL, Arm.), and év tuty belongs to Néyouow. It is in 
Christian society (i. 11) that this statement is made. 


18. These sceptics are supposed to hold to their doctrine: 
they deny the consequent in the Apostle’s conditional proposi- 
tion. If Christ is risen, dead people can rise. Dead people 
cannot rise. ‘Therefore, Christ is not risen. ‘ But if resurrec- 
tion of dead men does not take place, Christ a/so hath not been 
raised,’ and ovd€ may be kept in the front place by rendering, 
‘neither hath Christ been raised’ (RV.). But ov5€ must not be 
rendered ‘not even,’ which would rather obscure the line of 
argument. The fact of the Incarnation involves a difference in 
kind between the Resurrection of the Son of God and that of His 
adopted children. The connexion between antecedent and 
consequent is therefore not logical merely, but causa/: the 


348 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 13-15 


Resurrection of Christ is not viewed by the Apostle as one 
particular case of a general law, but as the source of Divine 
Power which effects the Resurrection in store for His members 
(v. 23). Deny the effect, and you overthrow the cause ; accept 
the cause as a fact, and the effect will certainly follow. 


14, The sceptics still persist, and accept the denial of the 
antecedent: Christ is not risen. St Paul goes on to show what 
this denial involves, viz. (1) the falsification of Apostolic teaching 
and of Christian faith (14-17), and (2) the destruction of all 
Christian hope (18, 19). Thus by a reductio ad impossibile the 
denial is disproved. In short, the Resurrection of Christ is not 
an isolated fact or doctrine which can be accepted or rejected 
independently of other truths: it is the very centre of the 
Gospel. 

ei 5€ Xp. obx eynyeprar. ‘But if Christ hath ot been raised 
(ov« emphatic), void certainly (apa) is our preaching, void also is 
your faith. * 6 xjpuypa looks back to xypvocopev (v. 11), and 
means, ‘what we preach,’ the substance of it (i. 21, ii. 4); and 
miotts looks back to émurevoare (v. 11): apa, ‘in that case,’ 
‘then,’ as an inevitable result ; Kxevos, 7zanis (see above on 7. 10), 
‘empty,’ ‘hollow,’ ‘devoid of reality’: comp. xevy 4 éAmis airav 
(Wisd. iii. 11); Kevat éArides kai Wevdets (Ecclus. xxxi. 1). Here 
xevov and xevy are emphatic by position. But, as Origen points 
out, ‘Seeing that our preaching is of void, and your faith is not 
void, then Christ has been raised.’ Cf. Eph. v. 6; Col. ii. 8. 


15. edptoxdpeba S€ Kat Weudoudprupes tod Oeod. ‘And (as a 
further consequence) we are found to be also false witnesses of 
God (obj. gen.), because (in preaching) we bore witness respect- 
ing God that He raised the Christ, whom He did not raise, if 
indeed after all dead men are not raised’; s¢ videlicet mortui non 
suscitantur (Beza). AV. has ‘rise not’; but éye¢povras is passive, 
not middle. Etpioxw is often used of moral judgments respecting 
character, and conveys the idea of discovering or detecting: 
iy. 2; 2 Cor. X..12, x. 205) Gab i. 1975-Phil i, 9. sWemees 
take rod @eot as the subjective genitive, ‘false witnesses in the 
service of God,’ ‘Divine witnesses telling lies,’ but this is less 
suitable; and ‘falsely claiming to be God’s witnesses’ is 
certainly not the meaning. There is a similar doubt respecting 
kata tod Geod, which would usually mean ‘ against God,’ adversus 
Deum (Vulg. Luth.), but may mean ‘about God,’ ‘of God,’ de Deo 
(Erasm. Beza), although not a Deo (Calv.). The meaning 


* The xal after dpa should probably be omitted (BL, Latt. Syrr. Copt. 
Arm. Aeth.); also 6é after xevy (NAB D* FP, Latt. Copt.). And tuav 
(NAF GKP, Latt, Syrr. Copt. Arm.) is to be preferred to 7uav (BD*, 
Basm. Goth.). 


XV. 15-17] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 349 


‘respecting’ or ‘about’ is fairly common in class. Grk., although 
not in the N.T., and is perhaps to be preferred here (Tyn. 
Genev. Rhem. AV. RV.). For, although every lie dishonours 
God, yet there is no special dishonour in saying that He raised 
Christ, if He did not do so; and if St Paul had meant ‘ against 
God,’ he would probably have put xara r. ©. after Wevdoudprupes 
rather than after euaprupyjoapev. Nevertheless, ‘against God’ 
(Wic. Cov.) may be justified on the ground that to attribute to 
a person a good or glorious act, which it is well known that he 
never performed, is to cause him to be suspected of having 
prompted the false assertion. The Apostles, if they falsely 
declared that God had raised Christ, would lead people to think 
that God had inspired them to tell lies about Him. This, 
however, is rather far-fetched. St Paul’s evident horror of being 
convicted at the bar of Divine justice of bearing false witness 
in this matter shows his estimate of the importance of the 
matter. And it is to be noted that the alternative possibility,— 
that he and the other Apostles were honest, but deluded 
witnesses, does not occur to him at all. The modern theory, 
that those who believed that they had seen the Risen Lord were 
victims of an hallucination, is wholly absent from his thought, 
even as a possibility. The force of the article before Xpucrov 
perhaps is ‘ the Christ of whom we have all along been speaking.’ 
For eizep see on vill. 5: here the addition of dpa indicates that 
the hypothesis is not St Paul’s own. 


16. A solemn repetition of the argument in v. 13; sudlato 
effectu, tollitur et causa. Here the form is slightly changed, and 
additional inferences (17, 18) are drawn from it. 


17. A solemn repetition and enlargement of v. 14, showing 
more clearly what the loss to the Corinthians would be it this 
theory were true. Both AV. and RV. render xevy in v. 14 
and paraia here ‘vain,’ and sometimes there is little difference 
between the two words: but here there is; xevy is ‘ wanting in 
reality,’ paraia ‘wanting in result,’ ‘fruitless,’ ‘futile’ (Tit. iii. 9 ; 
4 Macc. xvi. 7). In class. Grk. paraos is of two terminations 
(Jas. i. 26); but here and 1 Pet. i. 18 the fem. occurs, as often 
in LXX. 

étt éote év Tals dpuaptiats budy. This may mean one of two 
things. If Christ has not been raised for our justification 
(Rom. iv. 25), His death is made a nullity, for there is no 
redemptive power in it. It does not save us from the guilt and 
penalty of sin ; for how can a dead Christ save others from death, 
which is the penalty of sin? And how can He secure for others 
a life beyond the grave which He Himself does not possess ? 
Comp. Rom. vi. 1-11 ; Phil. iii. 10; Col. iii. 1. Or, the words 


350 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 17-19 


may be an appeal to their personal experience. If Christ had 
not risen, they would still be living in their original heathen 
wickedness, for baseless credulity could never have delivered 
them. It was faith in a living Christ that had done that. 
Therefore Christ has been raised. This is a more telling argu- 
ment than the other, because it is based on what the Corinthians 
could not help knowing. They were as sure that they were not 
continuing their old heathen life as the Apostles were that they 
were not lying witnesses. But the former is closer to the 
context, and to St Paul’s doctrinal purpose. 


18. dpa kal ot Kompnbevtes ev Xptot@ amwdovto. ‘So then, they 
also who were laid to sleep in Christ have perished’; an 
amazing result! By ev Xp. is meant ‘believing in Christ, 
and in communion with Him.’ It is those who are not ev 
Xpicrd when they die that perish. This denial of the resurrec- 
tion of the dead throws everything into confusion. The dérdédAea 
is the utter loss consequent upon dying in sin. This meaning 
is frequent in St Paul (i. 18, vili. 11; 2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3; 2 Thess. 
ii. 10). See Cremer, p. 452; also Beet, Zhe Last Things, pp. 
122 f., a valuable discussion. They have surrendered everything 
in order to have eternal life with Christ at His Coming, and they 
have died. If they are dead beyond possibility of restoration, 
then death separates us for ever from Christ. Is that credible? 
This is not an appeal to mere sentiment: it is an appeal to our 
sense of what is morally fitting, and this is a good supplement to 
the appeal to fact (v. 17). 


In class. Grk. d&pa rarely, if ever, stands first, as here; 2 Cor. v. 15; 
Gal. 11. 21, v. 113 etc. It isa little doubtful whether of xowunOévres is not 
a true passive, ‘those who were put to sleep,’ rather than middle, ‘ those 
who fell asleep,’ both here and 1 Thess. iv. 14. See J. H. Moulton, G». 
p- 162, and on the other side Milligan on 1 Thess. iv. 14, a passage 
which throws much light on this verse. The expression does not imply 
that the departed are unconscious, but that they are at rest, and may be 
raised again to full activity. See above on xi. 30. 


19. ci év tH Lwa tadtTy év Xpiota HAmKdteEs eoperv pdvoy. The 
first and last words, ‘in this life’ and ‘only,’ are emphatic; 
nevertheless, they should not be taken together ; ‘in this life 
only.’ The povov qualifies either Amores or the whole 
clause, and éopév is the copula, not the auxiliary to the participle 
to form an analytical tense. ‘If we are having only hope in 
Christ in this life’; or, ‘If in this life we are hopers in Christ 
and have nothing beyond’; ze. If all that Christians have got 
is hope in Christ, without possibility of life with Him hereafter, 
what can be more pathetic? See RV. marg. 

heeivotepor mdvtwv avOpitwv éopev. ‘We are more to be 


XV. 19, 20] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 351 


pitied than all men’; not ‘more miserable,’ ‘more wretched,’ 
but ‘more deserving of compassion.’* In that case, Christians 
would be toiling and suffering here under a great delusion, a 
hope that has no foundation and will never be fulfilled—and such 
a glorious hope! For éAeewvds see Rev. iii. 17 and LXX of Dan. 
tang e. £1, 1G 
The right order is €v Xpic7@ HA. eouév (NAB D* EFG), not #Azr. 
éopev év Xp. (KL P); and rdavrwyv dvép. éonév (NABEFGKLP), not 
éouév mw. avOp, (D, Latt., Orig.). 


20-28. The sum of the arguments in vv. 13-19 is that the 
doctrine maintained by the twes (v. 12) cannot be true, because 
it involves such monstrous consequences. And it is mof true, 
so that the consequences are of a wholly different character, and 
we can rejoice abundantly. Christ has been raised, and His 
Resurrection carries with it that of all those who are Christ’s, 
for the Risen One is the first fruit of a vast harvest (vi. 14). 
Apostolic preaching is not void; their faith is neither void nor 
futile; they are not in their sins; those that are asleep have 
not perished ; Christian hope is not limited to this life; and 
Christians are not the most pitiable of men (dze dedauerns- 
wiirdigsten or bejammernswerthesten unter allen Menschen), 

In these verses the Apostle ceases to argue, and authorita- 
tively declares the truth. Human logic is for the moment 
dropped, and the inspiration of the Prophet takes its place. 
Confident in the possession of knowledge which transcends 
experience and reason, he authoritatively declares what has 
been revealed to him respecting the relations between mankind 
and Christ, and between Christ and the Father. See Evans, 
Pp: 354, 361; Schiele, Dre Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 
1719-1731. 

20. Nuvi 84. These words begin a joyous outburst in contrast 
to the dreary pictures which he has been drawing. The denial 
which produced those pictures is not true; ‘ But, as it is, Christ 
has been raised from the dead, first of those that are asleep.’ 
The addition of éx vexpév implies a bodily resurrection, for 
Christ could not be thought of as among the spiritually dead. 
And ‘firstfruit’ implies community of nature. The first sheaf 
offered in the Temple on the morrow of the Passover was the 
same in kind as the rest of the harvest, and was a sort of 

* In the Apocalypse of Baruch (xxi. 13) we have a similar thought ; 
‘* For if there were this life only, which here belongs to all men, nothing 
could be more bitter than this” ; because happiness is so short-lived (14, 15) 
and life itself must end (22). The writer may have known 1 Corinthians. 
See on v. 35. Novatian may have had this passage in his mind when he 


argued (De Trin. xiv.) thus; S¢ homo tantummodo Christus, cur spes in 
i/lum ponttur, cum spes in homine maledicta referatur (Jer xvii. 5)? 


352 #=‘FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 20, 21 


consecration of the whole (Lev. xxiii. 10, 11).* For dmrapyy 
comp. xvi. 15; Rom. vili. 23, xi. 16, xvi. 5; Jas. 1. 18, where 
see Mayor; Rev. xiv. 4, where see Swete; Clem. Rom. Cor. 24, 
42. Christ is the first instalment, an earnest that many more 
are to follow. Comp. mpwroroxos ék tdév vexpdv (Col. i. 18), 
mp. T. v. (Rev. i. 5). 


The AV. has, ‘and become the firstfruits of them that slept.’ There 
is neither ‘and’ nor ‘ become’ in the true text : éyévero (K L, Syrr. Goth.) 
isa manifest correction; § AB D* F P 17, Latt. Copt. Arm., Orig. omit. 
"Arapxy is in apposition with Xpwurds, Christus resurrexit, primitiae 
dormientium (Vulg.). 


21. Christ leads the way in resurrection, as Adam did in 
death. In each case a man was the instrument of a great 
change in the condition of mankind, the one of a great dis- 
aster, the other of a great deliverance. ‘For since through 
man (by Adam’s sin) is death, through man aiso is resurrection 
of the dead’: Rom. v. 12, where see Sanday and Headlam. 
He says 84 dvO@pdmou, not é€€ dvOp. The deadly wound came 
€k Tov wovnpov: similarly the cure comes 6a Xpictod ek Tod 
Ilarpos. 

How can Adam be said to have led the way in death,— 
to have been the means of introducing death, where death 
was previously unknown? Death, as geology teaches us, was 
in the world long before man existed on the earth. Granted ; 
but death as the penalty of sin could not be in the world, until 
there was sin. Possibly St Paul believed Genesis ii. and iii. 
to be literally true;+ at any rate he regards the narrative as 
sufficiently true to be made the basis of a lesson. Genesis 
does not tell us that man was created immortal; it implies the 
contrary. But man was created with the opportunity of 
becoming immortal, for he was placed within reach of the 
tree of life. Because of his sin he was deprived of this oppor- 
tunity, was driven from the tree of life, and consequently died. 
In this sense death came to the human race through his 
instrumentality. The fact that the brutes had been dying for 
ages before man existed does not affect the question. See 
Goudge, p. 149. 

. _ And how can Christ be said to have led the way in resur- 

* el dvéorn Xpwords ek vexp&v, mpwréroxos dé éxeivds éoTw €x vexpar, 
ovdels 6¢ mpwréroxds éorw érepoyevGs, avdyKn omoyevy elvat THY avdoTacwy 
avrod TH dvacrdce: Tay dviorauévwy (Origen). Sz caput resurrexit, necesse 
est ut caetera quogue membra seqguantur (Primasius). On St Paul’s know- 
ledge of the details of Christ’s life, see Camb, Bibl. Ess. pp. 336f. On his 


use of the contrast between Christ and Adam, see Abbott, 7he Son of Man, 
pp. 80 f. 


+ The article before’Addu and before Xpiure points to both as historical 


<3 persons, each producing an effect. 


XV. 21, 22] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 353 


rection, and to be drapyy) tov Kexouwnnevwv? Others had been 
raised from the dead before He was; He had raised some 
Himself. But only to die again. None of those who had 
been restored to life remained for ever alive, for death had 
not yet been conquered. Christ was the first, and thus far 
is the only human being, who non moriturus surrexit—rose 
never to die again. 


22. Transition from abstract to concrete.| ‘For as in ee 
all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’ * By ‘i 
Adam’ and ‘in Christ’ is meant ‘in the person of,’ as Having 
a community of nature with.) In different ways, Adam and 
Christ were each of them Head of the human race and could 
represent it. But the simple ‘in’ is as intelligible as any para- 
phrase. It is more important to determine the meaning of 
mavres in each clause. The argument, that zavres must have 
the same meaning in both clauses; zavres in the first clause 
must mean the whole human race; therefore zavres in the 
second clause must mean the whole human race, is somewhat 
precarious. The meaning may be, ‘As it is in Adam that all 
who die die, so it is in Christ that all who are made alive are 
made alive.’ It is still more precarious to argue that ‘in 
Christ shall all be made alive’ implies that all mankind will 
at last be saved.t The meaning may be that all will be raised, 
will be quickened, which is not the same as saying that all 
will be saved. See Dan. xii. 2, where a resurrection of the 
wicked is taught for the first time in the O.T., together with 
a belief in future rewards and punishments; but of Israelites 
only, and perhaps not all of them, for the ‘many’ (not ‘all’) 
possibly refers to great saints and great sinners, and to no 
others. ‘Many of them that sleep (Jer. li. 39, 57) in the 
ground of dust (Job xx. 11, xxi. 26) shall awake (Isa. xxvi. 19), 
some to eternal life (Ps. of Sol. iii. 16; 4 Macc. xv. 3; Enoch 
XXXVil. 4, xl. 9, lvili. 3, lxii. 14), and some to reproaches and 
eternal abhorrence’ (Isa. lxvi. 24). See Driver, ad /oc.; Dalman, 
The Words of Jesus, pp. 156 f.; and the parallel passage John v. 
28, 29. In wv 36, as in Rom. iv. 17, Cworouiy is used in a 
natural sense, in John v. 21, vi. 63 in a spiritual sense: in 
each case the context must decide. See Hatch, Zss. in Bibl. 
Grk., p. 5, for the Hellenistic use of the word. 

* Nothing is said about the saints being ‘‘caught up in the clouds to 
meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess. iv. 17) either here or in later Epistles. 
Perhaps St Paul has recognized that such language is symbolical and may 
mislead. And nothing is said about the wicked: their fate is not much in 
the Apostle’s mind. He gives no hint of either further probation or annihila- 


tion: but that does not allow us to say that he denied either. 
t See iii. 17, vi. 9, 10, xi. 32. 


23 


354 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 28, 24 


23. Exagtos be ev TO dio tdypartt. ‘But each in his own 
division.’ There is little doubt that tayya is a military meta- 
phor ; ‘company,’ ‘troop,’ ‘band,’ or ‘rank.’ We are to think 
of each ‘corps’ or body of troops coming on in its proper 
position and order: 2 Sam. xxiii. 13; 1 Sam. iv. 10; Josephus 
BJ. i. ix. 1, ui. iv. 2. In BJ. i. vill. 14, after mentioning the 
Pharisees, he goes on, Saddoveator b€, ro Sevtepov taypa,.. . 
Yuxyns Te THY Stapoviy Kai tas Ka adov Tipwpias Kal Tyas 
dvaipovot. Of these taypata there are two, clearly marked, 
in the present passage; Christ, who has already reached the 
goal of Resurrection ; and Christ’s Own, who will reach it when 
He comes again. Perhaps St Paul is thinking of a third rayyo, 
those who are not Christ’s Own, to be raised from the dead 
some time before the End. But throughout the passage, the 
unbelievers and the wicked are quite in the background, if 
they are thought of at all. The whole context is governed by 
év Xp. Cworrou. (v. 22). It is perhaps because only the good are 
under consideration that St Paul used zapovoia rather than xpiors 
or Hepa Kpicews. With the beautiful expression, of rod Xpucrod, 
comp. iii. 23; Gal. v. 24; John x. 3, 14: it means all the saved, 
whether Christians, Jews, or heathen. Deissmann (Light, pp. 
372, 382) has shown that zapovoia was a technical term for the 
arrival of a potentate or his representative, and that Kaicapos 
“belonging to the Emperor,” was used in much the same sense 
as Xprorod is used here. 


24. eita 15 tédos. ‘After this will come the End’ is perhaps 
to be preferred to ‘Then cometh the End’; but the latter has 
the advantage of being as indefinite in meaning as the Greek 
seems to be. It is evident that there is an interval (éecra), 
which still continues, between the first and the second rdypa. 
Christ’s Own are still waiting. Is there also to be an interval 
between His Coming and the End? Or does St Paul mean 
that the Coming is the End—that the two are simultaneous? 
It is impossible to say, for efra, like ‘then,’ may introduce either 
what is subsequent or what is immediately consequent. In 
vv. 5 and 7 there is an interval: comp. 1 Tim. ii. 13, ili. 10, 
the only other passages in which St Paul uses e?ra: and what 
follows seems to imply an interval. See Thackeray, Zhe Relation 
of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 120f., and 
comp. 1 Pet. iv. 7. ‘The End’ may be compared with 7 
ovvtedeia Tov aidvos (Matt. xiii. 40, 49, XXiV. 3, XXVili. 20); it 
balances azapyy. 

Stay wapadi8@ thy Baoiletav TO GEG kal matpl. ‘Whenever 
He delivereth the Kingdom to the God and Father.’ The 
orav indicates that the time for this is quite uncertain. As no 


XV. 24] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD chy 


ypGv is expressed, the meaning probably is ‘ 7s God and Father.’ 
It is to God that the Kingdom belongs, and it is to Him both 
as God and as Father that the Son delivers it. Comp. 2 Cor. 
1. (3, xi.. 31; Rom: xv. G5 Epby i. 3, 275: Mark xv...34 John 
Xxx. 17; Rev. 1. 6, itl. 2, 123 1, Pet. 1. 3, where see Hort’s note. 
Our Lord Himself spoke of the Father as His God, and His 
Apostles are not afraid of asserting the same truth. Usually 
6 @eds x. watyp is followed by a genitive to show whose God 
and Father is meant, but in Eph. v. 20 and Jas. i. 27 there is 
no genitive, as here, and ‘of us’ may be included with ‘of 
Him.’ What exactly is meant by zapadé tiv BacwAclay, is beyond 
our comprehension. Sovereignty has been committed to the 
Son for a definite purpose: when that purpose has been fulfilled, 
the sovereignty returns to the original Source. We need not 
think of Christ as losing anything or as ceasing to rule, but 
as bringing to a triumphant conclusion a special dispensation.< 
It is His work to put an end to all that opposes the sovereignty 
of God. When all opposition is brought to nought, the Divine 
sovereignty, in which the Son shares (John xvii. 10; Eph. v. 5; 
Rev. xi. 15, xxii. 1, 3), will be complete, and the reign of God, 
which is the reign of love, will no more have let or hindrance. 
We lose ourselves, when we try to define the details of this con- 
summation: it is wiser to adopt a reverent reticence and reserve. 

Stay kaTapyjoy Tacav dpxiv Kat macav efougiay kal Suvapur. 
‘Whenever He shall have done away with every principality, 
and every authority and power.’ Although this clause is plaeed 
after dravy zapada, it precedes it in time, as is shown by the 
change from present subjunctive to aorist. The ‘doing away’ 
is prior to the ‘delivering up.’ The order of events is (1) the 
abolition of all that opposes, (2) the handing over of the 
sovereignty, which is the End. This is not argument, but a 
revelation of mysteries. Nevertheless, the revelation has a 
place in the argument, for it shows how death, which at present 
has dominion over the human race, will at last be done away 
in the removal of every power that opposes the will of God. 
The terms, dpxy, efovaia, and dvvapis, do not necessarily imply 
evil powers (Rom. viii. 38; Eph. i. 21, ili, 10, vi. 12; Col. i. 16): 
the context must decide.* Here they are evil—rots €,6povs, 
and all evil influences, human (2 Thess. ii. 8) and superhuman, 
are included. ‘The verb is frequent in this Epistle, and has 
various shades of meaning; ‘reduce to inactivity,’ ‘supersede,’ 
‘subdue,’ ‘abolish,’ ‘destroy.’ See Cremer. 


* “*Originally terms of Jewish speculation, they came in after times to 
play a large part in Christian thought. The Apostle’s purpose in mentioning 
them is to emphasise the exaltation of Christ above them all” (J. A. Robinson 
on Eph. i. 21, p. 41). See Westcott on Heb. ii. 5-8. 


356 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 24-27 


It is not easy to decide between wapadidg (N ADF P) and rapadidot 
(BFG), and it is not important to do so, for mapaédiéot may be a sub- 
junctive: comp. Mark iv. 29, v. 43, ix. 30. Both forms are found in 
papyri; see Milligan on 1 Thess. v. 15. mapadq@ (KL) is a correction, 
to make agreement in tense with carapy7jcrp. 


25. Set ydp. This explains why the Son continues to hold 
the BaotAcia. It has been so decreed by God, and the decree 
has been made known in prophecy (Ps. cx. 1; Mark xii. 36): 
Bactrctvew, ‘to be King, remain King’ (imperf. infin.). See 
Luke i. 33, and Pearson, On the Creed, Art. vi. p. 282. The 
nominative to 69 is Christ, not God, as is clear both from the 
syntax of the sentence, and the context generally. For the 
constr. comp. xi. 26; Gal. iii. 19; Rom. xi. 25. In the Pauline 
Epp., as in the N.T. generally, dxpu is more common than peéxpu, 
but dxpe occurs only in this group. 


The MSS. vary much between d&xpe and dxpis, and K L add dy after 
dxpis o¥. AFG 17 and several versions add avrod after rods éxOpods. 


26. Eaxatos €xOpds Katapyettar 6 Odvatos. No article; there 
can be only one last: comp. €vxdrn wpa (1 John ii. 18). ‘As 
the last enemy, Death is brought to nought—is done away’: 
present tense of what is certain. Death is brought to nought 
when all his victims are restored to life. This same truth is 
expressed by St John in symbolical language when he says that 
Death and Hades were cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. xx. 14, 
where see Swete).* As vv. 54, 55 show, St Paul probably has 
in his mind Isa. xxv. 8 and Hos. xiii. 14. Here xarapyetrac 
seems to imply total destruction; but, whatever may be said 
on other grounds for the theory of the ultimate annihilation of 
the wicked, it can hardly be said that the destruction of Death 
lends support to it. See Beet, Last Things, pp. 236 f.; Langton 
Clarke, Zhe Eternal Saviour Judge, pp. 91, 181, 306, 336; 
Briggs, Zhe Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 114f. B. Weiss 
contends that the depriving Death of all power does not 
exclude the possibility that those who have definitely rejected 
salvation will, 72 accordance with God’s will, remain in death 
because they remain in sin. But it is only because God wills 
it that Death ever has any power. Does He will that in certain 
cases that power should continue for ever? 


27. wavta yap Swératev. The first word is emphatic. ‘ For 
all things (and therefore Death among them) did God put 
under Christ’s feet.’ The aorist points to some remote past, 


*TIt is possible that some of the objectors urged that, if dead people 
were to be raised, they ought, like Christ, to be raised soon after death. 
St Paul intimates that a great deal must happen before the victory over 
Death is complete. See Swete, Zhe Ascended Christ, pp. xii. f., 16f., 32 f. 


XV. 27,28] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 357 


and should not be made a perfect, as ‘hath put’ (AV.). The 
meaning cannot be that God put all things under Dea‘h’s feet ; 
for this is not true, and is not the meaning of Ps. viii. 4-7, 
which tells of man’s marvellous dignity as God’s vice-gerent in 
the universe (Gen. i. 26, 28). This dignity the first Adam and 
his descendants lost through disobedience, but the Second 
Adam, through His obedience, has it in untold fulness, and 
at the Second Advent it will be complete.* 

Otay S€ eimy Ott WdvTa Grotéraxta. Strict grammar requires 
that the nominative to iméragev be the nominative to eizy, 
and this on other grounds is probable. It also requires that 
etry be treated as the futurwm exactum: ‘when God shall have 
said’ at some time in the future. Quando autem dixerit, omnia 
subjecta sunt (Iren. Vv. xxxvi. 2); when the End shall have 
come and God shall have proclaimed, ‘All things have been 
brought into subjection.’ Others refer the eizy to God’s 
declaration by the mouth of the Psalmist; cum autem dicat 
(Vulg.), ‘But when He hath thus said’ (Ellicott), which is 
much the same as ‘But when He saith’ (AV., RV.), guum~ 
autem dicit (Beza). ‘Those who make ‘Christ’ the nominative 
to ein, must make the verb refer to His final triumph; ‘When 
Christ shall have said,’ as He will say at some time in the 
unknown future. The change from trérafev to troréraxrae is 
in favour of the reference to a future declaration rather than 
to what is said in the Psalm: ‘have been subjected and remain 
in subjection.’ In that case, after 6jAov dre we must supply 
mdvta troreragera, ‘it is manifest that (all will be subjected) 
with the exception of Him (God) who subjected the all to Him 
(Christ)’; or, more simply, ‘of course with the exception,’ etc. 


The 67 before ravra voréraxrat is of doubtful authority: B, Vulg. and 
other Latin texts omit. The a’r@, ‘under Him’ (AV.), after broréraxras 
has very little authority. 


28. Grav S€ Srorayf attS ta Tdvta, téte k.7.A. ‘When, 
however, the all shall have been subjected to Him (the Son), 
then (and not till then) shall the Son Himself also be subjected 
to Him (the Father) who subjected the all to Him (the Son), 
that God may be all in all.’ The passage is a summary of 
mysteries which our present knowledge does not enable us to 
explain, and which our present faculties, perhaps, do not enable 
us to understand. See Cyril of Jerusalem, Caz. Lect. x. 9, 


* Schmiedel urges that the use of Ps. viii. here (comp. Heb. ii. 5) shows 
that the title ‘Son of Man’ was known to St Paul and other Apostles. 
They may have avoided the expression as likely to lead Gentiles to believe 
that Jesus was the son of some particular man (Knowling, 7he Zestimony of 
St Paul to Christ, p. 272). 


358 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 28-34 


xv. 29-31; Hooker, Zcc/. Pol. v. lv. 8. Perhaps tére kai ards 
6 vids should be rendered, ‘then shall evex the Son Himself,’ 
or ‘then shall the Son of Ais own free will. But the xad is of 
doubtful authority ; B D* E FG 17 and other witnesses omit. 

iva 4 6 Qcds mdvta €v maow. The iva depends on trorayjcerat, 
not on t@ trordgavtt. This is the purpose of the ultimate sub- 
jection of the Son to the Father, ‘that God, and Gad alone, 
may be everything in everything,’ ze. may fulfil all relations in 
all creatures. The raow is probably neuter, but the compre- 
hensive neuter, including both persons and things: see J. A. 
Robinson on Eph. i. 23, p. 44, and comp. ili. 22, viil. 6, xi. 12; 
xii. 6; Col. ili. 11. Wetstein gives examples of zavra and ra 
mwavra being used as predicates of persons; ¢.g. avr €xelvos Hv 
avtots (Dem. De Cor. p. 240). The meaning seems to be that 
there will no longer be need of a Mediator: all relations between 
Creator and creatures, between Father and offspring, will be 
direct. unc adhuc non est omnia in omnibus, quia singuli sanctt 
diversas virtutes ejus in se habent. Tunc autem universa unus 
habebit, et erit tpse omnia in omnibus (Primasius). Zune remoto 
velo palam cernemus Deum in sua mayestate regnantem, neque 
amplius media ertt Christi humanitas, quae nos ab intertore Det 
conspectu conhibeat (Calvin). Deus immediate se ostendens, vivi- 
jicans et effundens in beatos suam mirandam lucem, sapientiam, 
justitiam, et laetitiam (Melanchthon). See also Origen De Prin. 
1. v. 7; Gregory of Nyssa on 1 Cor. xv. 28, on the Soul and 
the Resurrection, and the Great Catechetical Oration; Weinel, 
St Paul, p. 50; Knowling, Messianic Interpretation, pp. 45, 110 f. 
See on waytes in v. 22. 


It is uncertain whether we should read ra rdvra (NEF K LP, Ath. 
Chrys.) or rdvra (A B D* 17, Arm., Hipp.). Origen has both readings. 


29-34. Once more there is an abrupt change of tone ;— 
“one of the most abrupt in St Paul’s Epistles. He leaves the 
new topic just when he has pursued it to the remotest point, 
and goes back to the general argument as suddenly as if nothing 
had intervened” (Stanley). He ceases to prophesy and reveal 
mysteries, and again begins to reason, as in the paragraph before 
v. 20. Two subsidiary arguments are here added, one based on 
baptism for the dead (v. 29), the other on the motive of the 
Christian life (30-34); and each has given rise to so much 
perplexity that some have proposed to omit trép rav vexpov and 
trép airav, or the whole of v. 29, or even the whole paragraph, 
as an interpolation.* But, apart from the violence of such 
emendations, what induced an interpolator to insert enigmas ? 


* Others propose damavdpevor and daravavra for Bamrifduevan and Barrl- 
fovrat, or dm’ épywy vexpav (Heb. vi. 1) for irép trav vexpav. 


XV. 29] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 359 


29. “Enel ti roujoouow ot Barrifdpevor bmep Tav vexpav ; ‘ Other- 
wise, what will they do who receive baptism for the dead?’ 
‘Otherwise’ or ‘ Else’ (v. 10, vii. 14) means, ei dvacracts vekpav 
ovx €orw (v. 13): and ti roujrovow may mean either, ‘what will 
they have recourse to?’ or, ‘what will they gain?’ The 
second question, «i dAws «.7.A., is in favour of ‘what will they 
gain?’ Neither Mark xi. 5 nor Acts xxi. 13 is quite parallel, for 
there the verb is present, not future. Jer. iv. 30 and Hos. ix. 5 
have the future, with the meaning, ‘what will you resort to?’ 
The question here implies that they will be in an absurd and 
piteous state. We might render, ‘what will be the position of 
those who receive baptism for the dead ?’ 

The meaning of of Barrilépevor trép tév vexpwv will remain 
doubtful. J. W. Horsley (Wewdery House Magazine, June 1890) 
has collected thirty-six explanations; see also Meyer. Only 
three need be noticed. 

1. The Greek expositors (ably supported by Evans) explain 
the expression as referring to ordinary Christian baptism, tzép 
Tav vexpov being taken as meaning ‘with an interest in the 
resurrection of the dead,’ z.e. in expectation of the resurrection. 
But is there any authority for this use of trép? And is not the 
supposed ellipse of t7s avaoracews very violent? If St Paul had 
wanted to abbreviate irép tis advacrdcews tov vexpov, he would 
have left out trav vexpwv, not THs dvactdcews. Lastly, the article 
with the present participle, ot Bamrifouevor, seems to imply a 
class of people who practise something exceptional. 

2. The reference is to some abnormal baptismal rite known 
to the Corinthians, which would be meaningless without a belief 
in the resurrection. This hypothesis, when left quite indefinite, 
is admissible. But when it is defined as vicarious baptism, i.e. ° 
of baptizing living proxies in place of those who had died un- 
baptized, it becomes highly improbable. This practice existed 
in some quarters in Tertullian’s day (De Resur. 48; Adv. 
Marion. v. 10), but perhaps only among heretics. There is no 
evidence that this vicarious baptism was practised anywhere in 
St Paul’s time; and if it had been, would he have used such a 
superstitious rite as an argument? Granted that such an argu- 
ment does not necessarily imply approval of the rite, yet it 
would have laid him open to the retort, “‘ But we do not practise 
anything of the kind; what is that to us?” 

3. The reference is to something exceptional, but which may 
often have occurred at Corinth and elsewhere, and which the 
Apostle would approve. Persons, previously inclined to Chris- 
tianity, sometimes ended in being baptized out of affection or 
respect for the dead, ze. because some Christian relation or 
friend had died, earnestly desiring and praying for their con- 


360 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 29, 30 


version. Such might reasonably be designated as ‘those who 
receive baptism on behalf of the dead.’ See Findlay, ad /oc. ; also 
Hastings, BD. i. p. 245. Stanley gives thirteen interpretations, 
but not this last, which is one of the best. With regard to the 
arguments as a whole he says ; “‘ They may fail of themselves in per- 
suading us of a future state, but they cannot fail in persuading us 
of his intense conviction of the reality of Christ’s resurrection ; 
and not of its reality only, but of its supreme importance as a 
turning-point in the destinies of the human race” (p. 313). 

€i dAws vexpol odx eyelpovtat. To be taken with what follows 
(RV.), rather than with what precedes (AV.). “If dead people 
are not raised at all (if this is quite certain), why in the world 
(xaé intensive) are they baptized for them?” Comp. ei pa yap 
TOUS TPOTETTWKOTAS AVATTHVAL TpoTEdoKa, TEpLagov Kal Anpades b7rép 
vexpov evyerGar (2 Macc. xii. 44), an instructive passage in con- 
nexion with this verse. With oAws here comp. py épocat dAws 
(Matt. v. 34), and see on v. 1, vi. 7. In all four places the Vulg. 
has omnino, a word which has as many shades of meaning as 
dAws. ‘Actually’ or ‘absolutely’ might serve here, as in v. 1. 
With the intensive xai comp. the readings Rom. viii. 24, ti kai 
eArifer and tis kat tropnever. If resurrection is absolutely a fiction, 
then baptism for the dead is an absurdity. 

Both 2. and 3. have the decisive merit of satisfying the i7ép 
aitév at the end of the verse. These words would be super- 
fluous, or even inexplicable, if St Paul were speaking simply of 
ordinary Christian baptism. 


30. Another practical result of denying the possibility of 
resurrection is that it makes a great deal of the Christian life 
seem absurd, and that it destroys a very powerful motive for 
good behaviour. The hope of rewards is not the highest motive 
for virtue, but, if the reward hoped for is not an ignoble one, 
such as sensual pleasure or financial gain, to be influenced by 
the hope of rewards is not immoral. Righteousness simply for 
righteousness’ sake is not a sufficient motive for all of us at all 
times ; and even to those who find it sufficient, the thought of 
reward may be a help, especially such reward as the joy of a 
good conscience in this life and the inconceivable bliss of the 
beatific vision in the next. Destroy the belief in a future life, 
and, although the joy of a good conscience would still remain, 
yet a powerful motive for good conduct, and therefore a powerful 
defence against temptation, would be lost. 


After Bamzifovras we must read imép airdy (NAB D* EFGKP, 
Vulg. Copt. Arm, RV.) rather than brép r&v vexpdv (D> L, AV.). 


ti kal ypets KivSuvevonev macav dpav; ‘Why do we also stand 
in jeopardy every hour?’ The xaé is not intensive as in the 


XV. 30-82] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 361 


previous question; not, ‘Why in the world do we stand in 
jeopardy?’ The xaé means that ‘we also, as well as those who 
receive baptism for the dead, are affected by the denial of this 
doctrine.’ The xat #ets therefore implies that the Apostle and 
others like him are not among those who receive baptism for 
the dead. And mets must not be made more definite, as ‘we 
Apostles’ or ‘we preachers.’ It includes all those who, like St 
Paul, incur great risks for the Gospel. ‘Every hour’ is a vivid 
after-thought ; danger is never absent from such lives; Rom. 
Vill. 36; 2 Cor. iv. 10-12. 


31. And the danger is neither rare nor trifling. Every day 
he goes about with his life in his hands: odsideor assiduis 
mortibus guotidte (Calv.). Possiby he refers also to the moribund 
condition of his body, but the chief reference is to external perils 
which might any day be fatal; 2 Cor. i. 8, 9; xi. 23, é€v Gavaros 
moAAdxis. What assurance is he to give them for the truth of 
this strong statement? The estimation in which (as they know) 
he holds them. ‘As surely as I am proud of you,’ or, ‘I affirm 
it by the glorying in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.’ 
It is, however, not in any earthly sphere that he has this feeling, 
but év Xpiusre “Tyood tr Kvupiw yydv. The full titles show how 
great the security is, and the €xw perhaps implies that he regards 
his exultation over them as a valuable possession. We have 
similar asseverations 2 Cor. i. 23, il. 17, Xl. 10, xil. 19. Origen 
asks whether the Apostle does not here violate the evangelical 
command, Swear not at all, and leaves the question unanswered. 
Atto remarks that the fact that the Apostle here uses an oath 
proves that an oath is not always wrong; guod ipse Dominus 
mantfestat, dum non dicit quod amplius malum est, sed a malo 
(Matt. v. 37). Ny occurs here only in the N.T., and in the LXX 
poe oe xlil, 15, 16, vi THY bylecay Papas ; but comp. 1 Sam. 
i. 26, lil, 173 2 Sam. iii 35. Outside the Pauline Epistles, 
coe KAU XT) [LA, Kavxag au are rare in the N.T.; > Comp. I Thess. 
ii. 19; Phil. ii. 16; and for the feeling without this word, Col. 
ia. "The affectionate adeApot (which DEF GL, Orig, Chrys. 
omit) comes very naturally in the middle of the affectionate 
asseveration ; ‘I assure you by the brotherly pride in your faith 
with which I am possessed in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Rutherford). 


32. ci kata GvOpwrov EOnpropdyynoa ev Epeow. ‘If from merely 
human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus.’ The 
exact meaning of xara dvOpwrov (ili. 3, 1x. 8; Rom. iii. 5 ; Gal. 
i. II, iii. 15) depends on the context. Here it is placed first 
with emphasis, to show that the Apostle is speaking hypo- 
thetically from the ordinary secular point of view. It is beside 
the mark to say that he ought to have had a much higher view. 


362 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 32 


Taking common human estimates as his standard, he would 
have asked, Is it worth the risk? Will it fay? And he would 
have said, No. Humanae vitae respectu, tta ut nobis constet 
praemium in hoc mundo (Calv.); humano auctoramento, spe vitae 
praesentis (Beng.). No doubt, e@ypiopdyya, ‘I was a Onptopayxos, 
a wild-beast fighter,’ is metaphorical.* St Paul was a Roman 
citizen, and could not be compelled to fight as a Jdestiarius or 
venator in the arena, nor could he be flung as a criminal ad 
leonem. If, in spite of his citizenship, this had taken place, he 
would have mentioned the outrage and miraculous escape in 
2 Cor. xi. 23f., and St Luke would hardly have omitted it in 
Acts. He means that he was near being torn to pieces by 
infuriated men. Jer allegoriam bestiae intelliguntur adversariae 
potestates. Sicut in Psalmo; Ne tradas bestiis confitentem tibi 
(Primasius). Heraclitus is said to have called the Ephesians 
@ypia, and to have given this as a reason for not being one of 
their rulers. Pompey at Pharsalus said, oto.s Onpiows paxopeba 
(Appian &.C. ii. 11). Origen characteristically remarks, éore «at 
Onpia vonra. Comp. Ps. xxii. 13, 14; Tit. i. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 17; 
and Ignat. Rom. 5, Smyrn. 4, with Lightfoot’s notes. The uproar 
caused by Demetrius (Acts xix.) was probably later than this. 
The climax, peril (xivdvvevouer), peril of death (aro6vijcxw), peril 
of a horrible death (€@ypioyaynoa), is perhaps intentional. We 
have Oeoudxos (Acts v. 39), Geouaxety (Acts xxiii. 9, TR.). 

Ti pot TO Spedos; ‘What is ¢he profit to me?’ Where is the 
gain to compensate a man for such dreadful dangers? Ti ddeAos, 
without the article (Jas. ii. 14, 16), is more colloquial; so also in 
Plato and Philo. In LXX, ddedos occurs Job xv. 3 only. Here 
the sentence ends: it has its conditional clause in front of it. 
The next conditional clause belongs to the next sentence. 

ei vexpot ovk é€yetpovtrat. For the sixth time we have the 
foolish dogma of the tuves quoted, ‘ Dead people are not raised.’ 
If that disastrous dictum were true, they might be advising one 
another to adopt the impious conduct of the people in Jerusalem, 
Let us eat and drink, etc. (LXX of Isa. xxii. 13). S¢ Paul ts not 
stating his own view, but the common view, the inevitable moral 
result of denying a future life (Isa. lvi. 12; Eccles. ii. 24, iii. 12, 


* Ramsay (.S¢ Paul, p. 230) regards it as ‘‘an interesting mixture of Greek 
and Roman ideas,” the Greek idea that the mob is a dangerous beast, and the 
Roman idea of fighting with beasts in the circus, The verb occurs nowhere 
else in N.T. or LXX. 

+ Marcus Aurelius (x. 8) says that to desire to live on under debasing con- 
ditions is like the half-devoured beast-fighters (rots jus8pwHros Onprouaxors), 
who, in spite of their ghastly wounds, beg to be respited till the morrow, only 
to be exposed to the same teeth and claws. The question is thoroughly 
discussed by Max Krenkel, Beztrage zur Aufhellung der Geschichte und der 
Briefe des Ap. Paulus, pp. 126-152. 


XV. 32, 33] RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 363 


v. 18, vill. 15, ix. 7; Luke xii. 19; and esp. Wisd. ii. 6-9). 
Similar passages abound in classical writers ; Hdt. ii. a “Thue. 
M1535 Hur. Ale. gabe eee Om, Ik iil..rg. At Trimalchio’s 
banquet (Petron. Satyr. 34), the thought of the dead makes the 
guests exclaim, 


Heu! heu! nos miseros! quam totus homuncio nil est ! 
Sic erimus cuncti postquam nos auferet Orcus. 
Ergo vivamus dum licet esse bene. 


The advice is despondent rather than defiant; but in any case 
the Apostle suggests that it is shocking, and therefore the 
doctrine of annihilation, on which it is based, must be untrue. 
No Christian can accept it, but those who deny that there is 
a life after death are only too likely to accept it. Belief in a 
resurrection is a moral safeguard. See Lightfoot, Camébridge 
Sermons, pp. 123-125. St Paul has no sympathy with moral 
ideals which provide no forgiveness of sins ; and without Christ’s 
Death and Resurrection there is no forgiveness. 


33. Having quoted the natural but fatal advice which might 
be given to them, he passes on to give advice which is wholesome 
and necessary. Here we get his own view. 

py mAavdobe. ‘Do not degin to be led astray ’ (vi. 9), nolite 
seduci (Vulg.); or(better), ‘Cease to be led astray’ by such Epicurean 
principles: vi. 9; Gal. vi. 7; Jas. 1. 16, where see Hort’s note. 
He perhaps wishes to intimate that some of them have been 
captivated by this specious, but immoral doctrine. The quota- 
tion that follows confirms this. 

pPeipovow Oy xpnota dpidiar kaxat. ‘Evil companionships 
mar good morals,’ or ‘Bad company spoils noble characters.’ 
It is uncertain whether Menander adopted a popular proverb, or 
the saying passed from the Zzazs into popular use. St Paul 
may have got the saying from either source; but the form ypyora 
(for the reading xpyo@ has hardly any authority) points to the 
proverb rather than the play. The saying is specially true of 
the Christian life, and the friends and acquaintances of the 
Corinthian Christians were mostly heathen; vii. 12, viii. 10, 
x. 273; 2 Cor. vi. 14-16. Neither émsAdae nor 76y is found 
elsewhere in the N.T. The former combines the meanings of 
‘conversations’ and ‘societies’ or ‘companies,’ cod/oguta (Vulg.), 
commercia (Beza), LXX of Prov. vii. 21; Wisd. viii. 18. We 
cannot infer from this passage, combined with Acts xvii. 28 and 
Tit. i. 12, that St Paul was well acquainted with classical writers ; 
his quotations may have been common-places. Origen (//om. 
xxxi. #2 Luc.) says that St Paul borrows words even from heathen 
in order to hallow them. 


364 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 34 


B34. exvypate Sixaiws kal pi dpaptdvere. Aor. imperat., 
between two presents with the negative: px mAavacbe . . . 
exvnare ... pa apaptavere. ‘Once for all shake off your 
drowsiness in a right spirit, and do not degin to sin,’ ze. do not 
let yourselves drift into evil courses by dallying with false 
opinions ; or, ‘Get rid of your stupor with a righteous resolve, 
and cease to go wrong’ in bad company. ‘The strong metaphor, 
éxvnware, implies that they were already in a grievous case. He 
addresses them, says Chrysostom, as if they were drunk or mad. 
Hence, evigi/ate (Vulg.) is hardly strong enough. The verb is 
used in a literal sense Gen. ix. 24; 1 Sam. xxv. 37; Joeli. 5: 
cf. dvavyWwow éx THs dvafsorAov mwayidas (2 Tim. ii. 26). Of its 
use here Beng. says; exclamatio plena majestatis apostolicae : 
nowhere else in N.T. 

It is possible that these sceptics claimed to be sober thinkers, 
and condemned the belief in a resurrection as a wild enthusiasm. 
If so, we have an explanation of the rather strange combination 
of dixatws with exvyware. 

dyvwolay yap Oeod Ties Exouow. ‘ For utter ignorance of God 
is what some (v. 12) have got.’ This is their disease, and they 
must get rid of it: for €yew in this sense see Mark iii. 10, ix. 17 ; 
Acts xxviii. 9. He says ayvwolavy €xew rather than ayvoety or 
ovk eidevar Or ov ywwoKew (i. 21) as being much stronger; and 
rather than yv@ow ov €xew as intimating that they not merely 
fail to possess what is good and necessary, but possess what is 
evil. Agnosticism is not so much privation and poverty, as 
positive peril. Is St Paul thinking of Wisd. xiii. 1? Maravoc 
pe yap mavres avOpwrot pice, ois raphy cod ayvwotia. On “the 
unquestionable acquaintance of St. Paul with the Book” of 
Wisdom see Hastings, DZ. iv. pp. 930f. ’Ayvwora is not dyvon, 
ignorantia, the absence of knowledge, but ¢gvoratio, the failure or 
inability to take knowledge. These Corinthians had no power 
of appreciating God’s existence or presence, His nature or will. 
See Hort on 1 Pet. ii. 15 ; also on Jas. ii. 18. 

mpos évtpomyy Gpiv Aad. ‘It is to move you to shame (vi. 5 ; 
Ps. xxxiv. 26) that I am speaking to you in this manner.’ It was 
indeed a bitter thing for Corinthians, who prided themselves on 
their intelligence, to be told that as regards the knowledge of God 
they were more purblind than the heathen. Paulus ignorantiam 
Det illis exprobans, omni prorsus honore eos spoliat(Calv.). Their 
inability to recognize the power and goodness of God was shown 
in their dogmatic assertion that He does not raise the dead. See 
on iv. 14 and vi. 5; also Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. 22. 


AaAG (NW BD EP 17) is certainly to be preferred to Aéyw (AF GK L); 
loguor (Vulg.), dico (fg). 


XV. 35-58} ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 365 


XV. 35-58. ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS; THE NATURE 
OF THE BODY OF THE RISEN. 


Again we have three subdivisions; (@) The Answers of 
Nature and of Scripture, 35-49 ; (2) Victory over Death, 50-57 ; 
(c) Practical Result, 58. 

Plato in the Phaedo, and Cicero in the Zusculan Disputations, 
argue for a future life; but resurrection is beyond their view. 
Does St Paul confuse the resurrection of the body with the 
immortality of the soul? Only so far as those with whom he is 
arguing confused the two. According to current ideas, to deny 
the possibility of resurrection was coming very near to denying 
any real life beyond the grave. The body was commonly re- 
garded as the security for the preservation of personality. If the 
body was never to be preserved, the survival of the soul would be 
precarious or worthless. Either the finite spirit would be absorbed 
in the Infinite Spirit, or its separate existence would be shadowy, 
insipid, and joyless. St Paul shapes his argument to meet both 
classes,—those who denied the resurrection of the body, but 
allowed the survival of the soul, and those who denied both. 
Christ, in refuting the Sadducees, treated the two doctrines as so 
closely connected that to admit immortality and deny resurrection 
was illogical.* Christ argues from the Living God, as St Paul 
from the Risen Christ. The continued relation of the Living 
God to each one of the patriarchs implied the permanence of 
their personal life. The continued relation of believers to the 
Christ who has been raised in the body implies the permanence 
of their bodily life. See Swete, Zhe Ascended Christ, p. 138. 

In working onwards to the triumphant conclusion, St Paul 
frequently falls into the rhythmical parallelism which distinguishes 
Hebrew poetry: see especially vv. 42 f. and 5rf. 


People ask how the body that dies and the body that ts 
raised can be the same. Nature itself shows that there ts 
no necessity for their being the same. The seed and the 
plant that rises from itt are so far from being the same, that 
the one must die in order that the other may live. Even 
between bodies that are material there are endless possibilities 
of difference ; and not all bodies are material. There may 


* Possibly Christ meant no more than ‘‘that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 
were already enjoying a life fuller and more complete than that which the 
Jews were accustomed to associate with Sheol”; but such an answer seems 
to be hardly adequate. In 4 Maccabees, which is a philosophical Jewish 
homily, it is stated that the godly do not die, but live to God ({G@ow r@ Oew), 
like the Patriarchs ; vii. 19, xvi. 25. 


366 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 35-58 


be immense differences, yel real relationship, between the body 
that dies and the body that ts raised. Scripture confirms 
this. 

The transformation of the material body that dies into a 
glorified body that will not die is not only possible, but 
necessary and certain; and hence the completeness of the 
victory over Death. 

With this certainty before you, be steadfast, working in 
sure hope of eternal life. 


85 But some one is sure to object, Is it possible for the dead 
to be raised? Why, with what kind of a body will they come 
back? % The question may seem to be clever, but it is really 
very foolish, and daily experience answers it. The seed which 
you yourself sow can have no new life given to it, unless it dies: 
87and what you sow is not the body that is to be, but just a 
leafless grain; say a grain of wheat, or of any other plant. 
88 But it is God who gives it a body just as He ordained it from 
the first, and to every one of the seeds the kind of body that is 
appropriate to it. °® Even now, without taking account of resur- 
rection, flesh is not all of it the same in kind: there is flesh of 
men, and of beasts, and of birds, and of fishes,—all different. 
40 Moreover, there are bodies fitted for existence in heaven, and 
bodies fitted for existence on earth; but the beauty of the 
heavenly bodies is quite different from the beauty of the earthly. 
41 The sun has a splendour of its own ; so has the moon; and so 
have all the stars, for no two stars are the same in splendour. 
42 These differences are very great, yet we think them natural. 
There is just as much difference between the body that dies and 
the body that is raised, and the change need not seem incredible. 
Think of the body as a seed committed to the ground. 

It is sown a thing perishable, it is raised imperishable. 
48 Tt is sown in disability, it is raised in full glory. 
It is sown in powerlessness, it is raised in full vigour. 
44 Tt is sown an animal body, it is raised a spiritual body. 
As surely as there exists an animal body, 
So surely there exists a spiritual one. 
45 Yes, this is the meaning of that which stands written, 
The first man Adam became a life-having soul ; 
The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 


XV. 46-58] ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 367 


46 Yet not first in time is the life-giving spirit ; 
But the animate comes first, and then the spiritual. 
47 The first man is from the dust of the earth ; 
The Second Man is from heaven. 
48 And each gives his nature to those of his race. 
As the earthy one is, such also are those who are earthy, 
And as the Heavenly One is, such also are those who are 
heavenly. 
49 So, just as we have borne the likeness of the earthy, 
We shall also bear the likeness of the Heavenly. 

50 Now this I assure you, Brothers, that flesh and blood can 
have no share in the Kingdom of God, nor yet what is perishable 
in what is not perishable. °! And here I reveal to you a truth 
that has hitherto been kept secret respecting our future estate. 

We shall all of us—not sleep in death, 
52 But we shall all be transformed ; 
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, 
At the last trumpet-call. 
For the trumpet will sound, 
And the dead will be raised, never again to perish, 
And we who are then alive shall be transformed. 
63 For this perishable nature of ours 
must put on what is imperishable ; 
And this mortal nature of ours 
must put on what is immortal. 
64 Now when this perishable nature 
shall have put on imperishability, 
And this mortal nature 
shall have put on immortality, 
Then indeed shall come true the word that has been written, 
Death hath been swallowed up into victory. 
55 Where, O death, is thy victory? 
Where, O death, is thy sting ? 
56 Its sting is given to death by sin; 
Its power is given to sin by the Law. 
87 But thanks be to God who is giving us the victory 
Through our Lord Jesus Christ. 


58So then, my dear Brothers, prove yourselves firm and un- 
moveable, abounding unceasingly in the work which the Lord 


368 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 35 


appoints for you, for you know that your toil cannot be in vain, 
with the Lord as your security for a blessed immortality. 


35. "AAAG épet tis, Mas eye(povra: ot vexpot ; As in Jas. ii. 18, 
the dAAa is the writer's word, not the objector’s. ‘But (some 
one will say) how are the dead raised?’ is probably wrong. 
Compare ’Epeis pot otv and épeis otv (Rom, ix. 19, xi. 19). Where 
St Paul has some sympathy with an objection he says, ri otv 
épovwev (Rom. iv. I, vi. 1, Vil. 7, Vill. 31, ix. 14, 30): here he 
has none. The objection is still urged. Granted that historical 
testimony and natural fitness are in favour of believing that 
Christ rose again as an earnest that we shall be raised, is our 
bodily resurrection possible? Can we conceive such a thing ? 
We cannot be expected to believe what is impossible and 
inconceivable, 

toiw S€ cwpat. epxovtar; ‘And with what kind of a body do 
they come?’ This second question is made in support of the 
first. Will it be the same body as that which died? But that 
body has perished. Or will it be quite a different body? Then 
how is that a resurrection? The €pxovrac seems to imply a rather 
crude idea of the resurrection, as if they were seen coming out 
of their graves. Yet such a conception is almost inevitable, if 
resurrection is to be pictured to the imagination (John v. 29). 
The Talmud shows that the Rabbis believed that the particles 
of the body which died would reunite at the resurrection and 
form the same body again.* So gross a conception could easily 
be held up to ridicule then, and is less credible than ever now 
that we know that the particles form several bodies in succession 
and may pass in time from one human body to another. See 
C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection, p. 14. For scientific 
answers to various objections, see Stewart and Tait, Ze Unseen 
Universe, ch. vii. 

The tus is one of the tues of vv. 12 and 34. The zés implies, 
What is the force that will raise the dead, and in what way does 
it act? The zofw cwpare implies, What is the result of its action ? 
What are the nature and properties of the raised body? Chry- 
sostom asks, Why does not the Apostle appeal to the omnipotence 
of God? and replies, Because he is dealing with people who do 
not believe, dru dmiorous duadéyerar. These objectors ayvwotay 
@eod éxovow and are incapable of appreciating such an appeal. 


* Tn what shape will those live who live in Thy day? Will they then 
resume this form of the present, and put on these entrammeling members? 
And He answered and said to me; The earth will assuredly restore the dead, 
which it now receives in order to preserve them, making no change in their 
form, but as it has received, so will it restore them” (Apocalypse of Baruch 
xlix., 2, 3, 1. 1, 2; see Charles ad /oc.), 


XV. 35-37] ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 369 


They do not apprehend even their own operations, and how can 
they understand His? * 

It is possible that €pxovra: is equivalent to ‘come éack,’ as 
often respecting Christ’s Return: comp. Matt. xxv. 19, 27; 
Luke xii. 45: but this is not necessary. How do they come on 
the scene? In what form is one to picture them? ‘The question 
may imply that the coming cannot be a return. 


36. adpwv, od 5 omeipers x.t.A. This is the answer to the first 
question, and it is given with a severity which implies that the 
objector plumes himself on his acuteness. But he is not at all 
acute. There is strong emphasis on the ov. ‘Your own ex- 
perience might teach you, if you had the sense to comprehend 
its significance. Every time you sow, you supply the answer 
to your own objection.’ The ov is in marked antithesis to 
6 @eds in v. 38. Lx tui operis consuetudine considerare debuisti 
guod dicimus (Primasius). Only by dissolution of the material 
particles in the seed is the germ of life, which no microscope 
can detect, made to operate. The new living organism is not 
the old one reconstructed, although it has a necessary and close 
connexion with it; it is neither identical with the former, nor 
is it a new creation (John xii. 24). Dissolution and continuity 
are not incompatible; ow they are combined is a mystery 
beyond our ken, but the fact that they can be combined is 
evident, and death setting free a mysterious power of new life 
is part of the Aow. Nihil in resurrectione futurum doceo quod non 
subjectum sit omnium oculis (Caly.). Yet this dppwv (Ps. xciii. 8 ; 
Luke xi. 40; five times in 2 Cor.) thinks his objection unanswer- 
able. St Paul speaks thus zpos éevtpompyv. 


On the anarthrous nominative for the vocative see J. H. Moulton, Gy. 
p- 71. KL here read d¢pov: so also TR. Comp. Luke xii. 20; Acts 
xiii. 10. See Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, p. 624. 


37. kal 6 omeipers x.t.A. This is the answer to the second 
question, introduced by xa. The grain, before being sown, is 
stripped of all the sheaths which protected it on the plant, as 
the human body, before burial, is stripped of its-usual clothing. 
The yupvov has no reference to the soul stripped.of the body, 


* Tu, inguit, qui te sapientem putas, dum per mundi sapientiam asserts, 
mortuos non posse resurgere, audi ex rebus mundi, unde tua sapientia probetur 
insapientia (Herveius). 

f It seems clear from vv. 36, 37 combined with v. 50 that St Paul did 
not believe that at the Resurrection we shall be raised with a body 
consisting of material particles. There is a connexion between the body that 
dies and the body that is raised, but it is not a material connexion, not 
identity of ‘flesh and blood.’ See Burton, Lectures, pp. 429-431, quoted by 
Conybeare and Howson ad loc. See also Lightfoot, Cambridge Sermons, 


PP: 74-79. 
24 


370 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (XV. 37-32 


an idea which is quite alien to the passage. The epithet, which 
is emphatic, looks forward rather than backward: 16 o@pa 16 
yernospevor, guod futurum sit (Vulg.), guod nascetur (Calv. Beng.), 
oriturum (Beza), will be clothed with green coverings, as the 
resurrection-body (2 Cor. v. 2) with glory.* As in xiv. Io, et 
tUéxot indicates an indefiniteness which is unimportant. For 
the argument there, the exact number of yévn dwvav was of no 
consequence: here the particular kind of grain is of no moment, 
—‘ wheat, if you like, or anything else.’ 


38. 6 8€ Geds. This is the important point. Neither the 
seed itself, nor the sower, provides the new body ; ‘ but it is God 
that giveth it a body exactly as He willed, and to each of 
the seeds a body of its own,’ ze. the right body, the one that 
is proper to its kind. Therefore to every buried human being 
He will give a proper resurrection-body. The use of cdpa of 
vegetation reminds us that the illustration has reference to the 
human body: and xaOas 76€Anoev, as in xii. 18 (not Kabds Geret, 
or kaOas BovAerat, as in xii. 11), Shows that God does not deal 
with each case separately, just as He f/eases at the moment, 
but according to fixed laws, just as it p/eased Him when the 
world was created and regulated.t From the first, vegetation 
has had its laws xara yévos cai xa dpoidrnta (Gen. i. 11, 12), 
and great as is the variety of plants, the seed of each has a body 
of its own, in which the vital principle, to be brought into action 
by death and decay, resides. See Orr, Exfositor, Nov. 1908, 
p- 436; Milligan, Greek Papyri, pp. 91, rot. 


39. 08 mica odp§ 7 att odp§. ‘Not all flesh is the same 
flesh.’ The difference between our present body and our 
risen body may be greater than that between a seed and the 
plant which springs from it. It may be greater than that 
between men and fishes. In Gen. i. 20-27 fishes are mentioned 
before fowls, and we have an ascending scale, fishes, birds, beasts, 
man; here we have a descending one. The use of xrnvév 
rather than retpazddwy (Rom. i. 23; Acts x. 12, xi. 6), and of 
mrnvov (here only) rather than zerewév (bid. et saepe), is for the 
sake of alliteration, of which St Paul is fond (2 Cor. vii. 4, 
Will. .22, 1X. 5, XG, XML 2): 

* The future participle is rare in N.T. Nowhere else does yevnoduevos 
occur ; éoduevos in Luke xxii. 49 only. 

+ Deissmann, Able Studies, p. 252, quotes similar expressions from 
private letters of the 2nd cent. A.D. 

Even a heathen could teach that it is our wisdom to accept God’s will as 
expressed in the ruling of the universe ; ‘‘ Dare to look up to God and say, 
Deal with me for the future as Thou wilt; I am of the same mind as Thou 


art; Iam Thine; I refuse nothing that pleases Thee ; lead me whither Thou 
wilt” (Epictetus, Dzs, ii. 16). 


XV. 39-41] ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 371 


TR inserts odp& after d\n wév with many cursives and some versions, 
and AV. follows: SABDEF etc. omit. AKLP omit ocdpt before 
arnvav: SBDEFG insert. D* FG correct rrnvGv to the more usual 
merewOy, EF KL transpose rrnvav and /y@vwv, perhaps influenced by the 
order in Gen. i, 20, and AV. follows. Already in Gen. i. 25, ii. 20 
Krivos is used of beasts generally, and not merely such as are acquired 
and possessed (xrac@ac) by men; it need not be restricted to cattle, 
pecorum (Vulg.), still less to beasts of burden, 7zmentorum (da). 


40. kal odpata éroupdvia, kat odpata emiyera. ‘ Bodies also 
celestial there are, and bodies terrestrial,’ ze. some suitable for 
existence in heaven, and some for existence on earth. We can- 
not be certain what St Paul means by cwpara érovpana, He 
can hardly be thinking of ‘he inhabitants of other planets ; nor 
is it likely that the Fathers are right in making the distinction 
between ézovup. and émvy. to be that between saints and sinners. 
Throughout the passage the differences between the various 
owpara are physical, not ethical. Is he thinking of angels, 
which may be supposed to have odpara, and are always repre- 
sented as appearing to men in the form of men?* This is 
possible, but it does not seem to fit the argument. St Paul 
is appealing to the Corinthians’ experience of nature, to the 
things which they see day by day: and they had no experience 
of angels. ‘ Heavenly bodies’ in the modern sense is more likely 
(v. 41) to be right. As there are differences on the earth, so also 
in the sky. ‘There is a wide difference (érépa) between terrestrial 
and celestial bodies; and there is a further difference (a\Ay) 
between one celestial body and another. The God who made 
these myriads of differences in one and the same universe can 
be credited with inexhaustible power. It is monstrous to 
suppose that He cannot fit a body to spirit. Therefore we 
must not place any limit to God’s power with regard either 
to the difference between our present and our future body, or 
to the relations between them. He has found a fit body for 
fish, fowl, cattle, and mortal man: why not for immortal man? 
Experience teaches that God finds a suitable body for every 
type of earthly life and every type of heavenly life. Experience 
cannot teach that there is a type of life for which no suitable 
body can be found. Phil. iii. 21. 


41. dotijp yap dotépos «.7.A. ‘I say “stars” and not “a 
star,” for star differs from star in glory’; the differences in 
light and lustre are endless. It is legitimate to apply these 


* It is not likely that he is thinking of sun, moon, and stars as the bodies 
of angels : comp. Enoch xviii. 13, 14 ; Jubilees ii. 2, 3. ‘Body’ here does 
not mean an organism, but what is perceptible, ‘‘a permanent possibility of 
sensation.” Miiller (Ordentalische Literaturzeitung, June 1900, Art. ‘Zum 
Sirachproblem ’) suggests that St Paul is here quoting from the Hebrew Sirach. 


372 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (XV. 41, 42 


differences in the heavenly bodies to possible differences in the 
glories of the risen saints, and it is not impossible that the 
Apostle had this thought in his mind. See Tert. De Res. 
49, 52. But his main argument is that God, who made all 
these Anown differences and connexions, may have made 
differences and connexions between our present and future 
bodies which are quite beyond our comprehension. Immense 
differences there are certain to be. See some excellent remarks 
of Origen in Jerome, Letter to Pammachius against John of 
Jerusalem, 26. 


42. Hitherto the answer to the second question (7ofw 6e 
cwpatt épyovrat;) has been indirect: it now becomes direct. 
The risen body is incorruptible, glorious, powerful, spiritual. It 
is quite obvious that the corpse which is ‘sown’ is none of these 
things. It is in corruption before it reaches the grave; it has 
lost all rights of citizenship (driéa), and, excepting decent 
burial, all rights of humanity; it is absolutely powerless, unable 
to move a limb. The last epithet, Yvyxdv, is less appropriate 
to a corpse, but it comes in naturally enough to distinguish the 
body which is being dissolved from the body which will be 
raised. The former was by nature subject to the laws and 
conditions of physical life (Wvyx7), the latter will be controlled 
only by the spirit (zvedua), and this spirit will be in harmony 
with the spirit of God. In the material body the spirit has 
been limited and hampered in its action; in the future body 
it will have perfect freedom of action and consequently complete 
control, and man will at last be, what God created him to be, 
a being in which the higher self is supreme. The connexion 
between ‘spirit’ and ‘power’ is frequent in Paul (ii. 4, v. 4; 
Rom. i. 4, xv. 13, 19): cf. Luke i. 35; Acts 1. 8. Evidently, 
Wuyixov does not mean that the body is made of Wvy7, consists 
entirely of wvy7: and zvevparixdy does not mean is made and 
consists entirely of wvedua. The adjectives mean ‘congenital 
with,’ ‘formed to be the organ of.’ The wv x7, in combination 
with the physical germ, enables the latter to develop according 
to the law of the yévos. ‘The zvetya, in combination with an 
immaterial germ, enables the latter to develop according to a 
higher law which is quite beyond our comprehension. The 
mvedpa is the power by which the yyy in our present body has 
communion with God; it is also the future body’s principle of 
life. Only in this Epistle does St Paul use Wuyxixds (vv. 44, 46, 
ii. 14 3 elsewhere Jas. iii. 15 and Jude 19; see Mayor on both 
passages, and Hort on Jas. iii. 15): Wvxy is found in all groups, 
except the Pastoral Epp. In the liturgies we frequently have 
the order, Yux7, siya, tvedua, perhaps suggesting that cpa is 


XV. 42-46 | ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 373 


the link between the other two (/ZS. Jan. 1901, p. 273). See 
Additional Note, pp. 38of. 


44. ci €or... ot kai. The emphasis is on éorw in both 
clauses ; ‘If there zs a natural body (and of course you cannot 
deny that), there s also a spiritual.’ Is it likely that the highest 
development of all is left blank?* This @ priori argument 
may be confirmed by Scripture. 


45. ‘Thus also it stands written; The first man Adam 
became a life-having soul; the last Adam a life-giving spirit.’ 
The second clause is not in Gen. ii. 7, but is St Paul’s comment 
on it (Thackeray, S¢ Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, 
p. 201). Comp. John iii. 31, v. 21, where the Evangelist may 
be combining his own reflexions with quotation. The yxy 
results from the union of the breath of life with a lifeless body. 
God’s breathing the vital principle into a lifeless human body 
shows that He gave mana soul-governed body, a body that was to 
be the organ of the Yvy7. Must not the last Adam be something 
much higher than that? St Paul says ‘the last Adam’ (Rom. 
v. 12-19) rather than ‘the second Adam,’ because here the 
point is that He is the supreme result in the ascending develop- 
ment. There will be no other Head of the human race. Our 
first parent was in one sense Head of the race; its ideal 
representative was head in a different sense; and there can be 
no third Head.j To those who believed that the world would 
soon come to an end it was specially obvious that Christ was 
the last Adam. Even in Jesus Himself there was development 
until He decame Cworouoiv, ‘able to communicate a higher form 
of life’ to the race of which He was Head: comp. John xx. 22. 
He became such at the Resurrection, and perhaps still more so 
at the Ascension. Before His death, His cya, like ours, was 
Wuyixov. See ‘Thackeray, pp. 40-49; Dalman, Words of Jesus, 
p. 247; Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, p. 79; Evans ad Joc. 


46. a\N od mpatov TO Tveupatikdy. This states a general 
law, not merely what took place in a particular instance: under- 
stand éom, not éyévero. ‘The spiritual’ is more comprehensive 
than ‘spiritual body.’ Adam could not be created morally 
perfect, but only capable of attaining to perfection; indeed, 
even his physical and mental powers needed development. 
Therefore the lower moral stage must precede the higher. 


* The AV. omits the ‘if’ with K L, and on the same weak authority adds 
* body’ to spiritual. There is no cGua before rvevparixdy in the true text. 

¢ Primasius points out that the first Adam and the last were alike in being 
produced without human father and without sin. Dr. E. A. Abbott thinks 
that the idea of the Messiah as ‘the Last Adam’ and ‘the Second Man’ 


comes from Ezekiel (7he Message of the Son of Man, p. 5}. 


374 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (Xv. 46-49 


Holiness cannot be given ready made. It is the result of the 
habitual free offering of self, the constant choice of good and 
refusal of evil, and it is capable of indefinite increase. There is 
nothing final in the universe, except God. All came from Him, 
and it may be that all is tending (with whatever interruptions) 
towards Him. Man’s appointed task and privilege is to be 
ever drawing nearer to Him. 


47. & mp@tos avOpwros ex yas xoikds. ‘The first man is 
of the earth, made of dust’: érAacev 6 @cds Tov avOpwrov yxotv 
dm6 THs yns (Gen. ii. 7). Otherwise we might have had yzivos 
or yyyevys: COMP. yyyevovs ardyovos tpwromAdarov (Wisd. Vii. 1). 
In Mark vi. 11, xovs is used for kovioptds (Matt. x. 14; Luke 
ix. 5; Acts xili. 51): comp. Rev. xviii. 19. But xods (xéw) is 
‘soil’ loosened and heaped up rather than ‘dust’: yoixés occurs 
nowhere else in Biblical Greek. De terra terrenus (Vulg.); 
better, e terra pulvereus (Beza). What is é« yis is liable to 
decay, death, and dissolution ; what is é€ otpavod is imperishable. 

é§ odpavod. This refers to the Second Advent rather than 
to the Incarnation. The Apostle is answering the question, 
‘With what kind of a body do they come?’ It was é& ovpavoi, 
e caelo, that the Risen Lord appeared to St Paul. From the 
Ascension to the Return, Christ is é€ ovpavod in His. relation to 
mankind. They are still ‘of earth,’ He is now ‘of heaven.’ 
See Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 282 f., for some valuable remarks 
on this passage in its bearing on eucharistic doctrine. 

The AV., with AK LP, Syrr. Arm. Goth., Chrys., inserts ‘the Lord,’ 
6 kvptos, before é€ ovpavod: &%* BC D* EFG 17, Latt. Copt. Aeth., Tert. 
Cypr. Hil. omit. Tertullian attributes the insertion, or rather the substi- 
tution of xUpios for dv@pwros, to Marcion: Primus zzguzt (stultissimus 
haereticus), homo de humo terrenus, secundus dominus de caelo. Quare 
secundus, si non homo, quod et primus? Aut numquid et primus dominus, 
sz et secundus(Adv. Marcion.v. 10). Tertullian himself gives two renderings ; 
Primus homo de terrae limo, secundus homo de caelo (De Carne Chr. 8); 
Primus homo de terra choicus, td est limaceus, td est Adam, secundus homo 
de caelo (De Res, 49). Cyprian has de terrae limo repeatedly, and once 
e terrae limo. 


48, 49. Each race has the attributes of its Head. As acon 
sequence of this law (xai), we who once wore the likeness of 
the earthly Adam shall hereafter wear that of the glorified 
Christ. What Adam was, made of dust to be dissolved into 
dust again, such are all who share his life; and what Christ is, 
risen and eternally glorified, such will be all those who share 
His life. A body, conditioned by Yvx7%, derived from Adam, will 
be transformed into a body conditioned by zvedyua, derived from 
Christ. See 1 Thess. iv. 16; 2 Thess. i. 7; Phil. iii. 20, 21; 
Eph, ii. 6, 20; also Swete, Zhe Ascended Christ, p. 138. 

If, with the best editors, we follow the greatly preponder- 


XV. 49, 50] ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 375 


ating external evidence and read dopéowpev rather than dopécoper, 
‘let us wear’ or ‘let us put on for wear’ rather than ‘we shall 
wear,’ the meaning will be that the attaining to the glorified 
body depends upon our own effort: see Goudge, p. 155. ‘But 
not only the context and the whole tenor of the argument are 
in favour of the future, but the hortative subjunctive is here 
singularly out of place and unlooked for” (Ellicott). Perhaps 
we have here “a very early instance of itacism.” Compare 
Jas. iv. 15, where the balance of evidence is very different and 
the future is undoubtedly right. Alford thinks that here “a 
desire to turn a physical assertion into an ethical assertion” 
has corrupted the reading. 


popécouwev, B 17 46 Arm. Aeth., Theodoret expressly (7d yap popécomev 
TpoppyTik@s, ov TapatveTix@s elpnxev): popeowuery, NACDEFGKLP, 
Latt. Copt. Goth., Chrysostom expressly (rodr’ éorw, dpiora mpdéwper). 


50-57. The two objections are now answered. How is 
resurrection possible after the body has been dissolved in the 
grave? Answer; The difficulty is the other way: resurrection 
would be impossible without such dissolution, for it is dissolution 
that frees the principle of new life. Then what kind of a body 
do the risen have, if the present body is not restored? Answer; 
A body similar to that of the Risen Lord, z.e. a body as suitable 
to the spiritual condition of the new life as a material body is to 
the present psychical condition. 

But a further question may be raised. What will happen to 
those believers who are alive when the Lord comes? The 
radical translation from wWvyxixev to rvevparixdv must take place, 
whether through death or not. Mortal must become immortal. 
God will make the victory over death in all cases complete. 


50. Totto 8¢ gnu. ‘ Now this I assert’ (vii. 29). The asser- 
tion confirms v. 49 and prepares for v. 51: it introduces a funda- 
mental principle which covers and decides the case. A perishable 
nature cannot really have possession of an imperishable Kingdom. 
For the Kingdom an incorruptible body wholly controlled by 
spirit is necessary, and this ‘flesh and blood’ cannot be. By 
oapé kal aipa* is meant our present mortal nature, not our evil 


* This is the usual order (Gal. i. 16 ; Matt. xvi. 17), but alua cal odpé is 
also found (Eph. vi. 12; Heb. ii. 14). Perhaps the transitory and perishable 
character of man is specially meant ; olrws ‘yeved capxds kal aiuaros, 7 mev 
TedeuTg, érépa 5é yevvara (Ecclus. xiv. 18; comp. xvii. 31). In Enoch 
xv. 4-6 an offspring that is flesh and blood is contrasted with spiritual beings 
who have immortal life. 

The two meanings of ‘inherit’ are illustrated by the two renderings 
obtinere (Novatian) and fossidere (Vulg.). See Dalman, Words, p. 125; 
Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, p. 576. On St Paul’s idea of the Kingdom of God 
see Sanday in /7%S., July 1900, pp. 481f. ; Robertson, Bampt. Lect. ch. ii. 


376 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 50, 51 


propensities, which would be odpé without atya (Rom. viii. 12, 13). 
The expression here refers to those who are still living, whereas 
% PO0opa refers to those who have died. If living flesh cannot 
inherit, how much less dead and corrupted flesh. Our present 
bodies, whether living or dead, are absolutely unfitted for the 
Kingdom: there must be a transformation. See Briggs, Zhe 
Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 116-9; and for dpOapaia, J. A. 
Robinson on Eph. vi. 24. ‘Flesh and blood’ is treated as one 
idea and has a singular verb: comp. éws av rapéAOy 6 otpavos Kai 
n yn (Matt. v. 18): d7ov ons Kat Bpoors apavile (vi. 19). Here 
many witnesses have dvvavta, but divarac (8 B P) is no doubt 
correct. See J. H. Moulton, Gr p. 58, and comp. Exod. 
xix. 13. The construction is found in papyri. 


51. i800 puotypiov bpiv A€yw. Emphatic introduction of in- 
formation of great moment. This mystery of the sudden trans- 
formation of the living has been revealed to him: comp. Rom. 
xi. 25. For pvoryjpiov comp. ii. 1, 7, iv. I, Xill. 2, Xiv. 2: see 
Beet on ii. i. 7, pp. 60f. ‘Behold, it is a mystery that I am 
telling you: all of us will not sleep, but all of us will be changed.’ 
The desired antithesis requires that both clauses should begin 
with zavres: hence mdvtes od in the first clause, not ov zavrTes. 
Two things have to be stated regarding ‘all of us.’ That all of 
us will undergo death is not true; that all will undergo the great 
transformation is true. Of course St Paul does not mean that 
all will escape death, any more than zayras dé od py idys (Num. 
xxill. 13) means ‘Thou shalt not see any of them.’ The first 
person plural does not necessarily imply that St Paul felt con- 
fident of living till the Second Advent; but it does imply 
expectation of doing so in company with most of those whom he 
is addressing. Those who die before the Advent are regarded 
as exceptions. This expectation is more strongly expressed in 
the earlier letter to the Thessalonians (iv. 15); pets ot Cavres ot 
mrepitAcropevot eis THY Tapovoiav. In the later letter (2 Cor. v. 4 f.) 
the expectation seems to be less strong. But the belief that the 
Advent is near would seem to have been constant (xvi. 22; Phil. 
iv. 5; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 7; Jas. v. 8; Barnabas 21). Evidently 
the Apostle had no idea of centuries of interval before the 
Advent. Perhaps the fact that he and all his readers did fall 
asleep before the Advent had something to do with the confusion 
of the text of this verse. Knowling, p. 309. 


The ol before mdvres (A) may safely be rejected. The mév after the first 
mavres (SN AEF GKLP, Vulg. Copt.) is probably not genuine: BC* D*, 
e Arm. Aeth. omit. The other variations are more important. ov Kowwn8n- 
ooueba, mavres 6€ aA\XNaynooucba (B E K L P and MSS. known to Jerome, 
Syrr. Copt. Aeth. Goth., Chrys.) is to be preferred to Kowunodueba, ov 


XV. 51-54] ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 377 


mavres 6¢ d\Naynodueba (NS CFG 17 and MSS. known to Jerome, Arm.), 
and to dvaornoducba, ot mavres 6 adAdayrHoouefa (D, Latt., Hil.). See 
WH. ii. p. 118. 


52. ev drdpw, év pig dp0adpod. Neither expression occurs 
elsewhere in N.T. or LXX: compare the classical év dxape? 
xpévov. The marvellous change from death to life and from 
mortal to immortal will not be a long process, but instantaneous ; 
and it will be final. 

ev TH eoxdty oddmyyt. For this idea see 1 Thess. iv. 16; 
Matt. xxiv. 31; Rev. viii. 2, where see Swete; 2 Esdr. vi. 23. 
We need not suppose that St Paul believed that an actual 
trumpet would awaken and summon the dead. The language is 
symbolical in accordance with the apocalyptic ideas of the time. 
The point is that the resurrection of the dead and the trans- 
formation of the living will be simultaneous, as of two companies 
obeying the same signal. Here the Apostle classes himself and 
most of his hearers very distinctly among the living at the time 
of the Advent. ‘We, who shall not have put off the body, shall 
- be changed, not by putting it off, but by putting on over it the 
immortal that shall absorb the mortal” (Evans).* 


D* EF G have porn for purn, and ADEFGP have dvacrjoovra for 
eyepOnoovrat. ocadmioe is a late form for cadmlyée, and the nom. is not 
the trumpet, but the trumpeter, 0 cadmvyxrjs. Later Jewish speculation 
makes God sound a trumpet seven times at the end of the world to raise 
the dead. See Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, p. 82. 


53. Set yap 1d p0aptiv Todto évddcac8ar. The det looks back 
to the principle stated in v. 50: to ¢Oaprov is more compre- 
hensive than ro 6vyrov, but the two terms are meant to be 
synonymous and to refer to the living rather than the dead. By 
tovro the Apostle’s own body is specially indicated (Acts xx. 34) ; 
and évdvcacGa (aor. of sudden change) is a metaphor which 
implies that there is a permanent element continuing under the 
new conditions. In a very real sense it is the same being which 
is first corruptible and then incorruptible. Compare 2 Cor. ii. 4; 
Cicero (Zusc. Disp. i. 49), supremus tlle dies non nostri extinctio- 
nem sed commutationem affert loci; Seneca (Zp. ad Lucil. 102), 
dies iste, quem tamquam extremum reformidas, aeterni natalis est. 


54. The Apostle dwells on the glorious change and repeats 
the details in fall. As soon as it takes place, then, at that 
solemn moment and in this mysterious way, the prophetic utter- 
ance which stands written (Deissmann, Azb/e Studies, p. 112) will 
have its realization, and ‘the farthest-reaching of all O.T. pro- 
phecies ” (Dillmann) will become an accomplished fact (yevijoerar). 


* At the time when Philippians was written, the Apostle still believed 0 
Kidpuos éyyis (iv. 5), and perhaps he always did believe this. 


378 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XV. 54-56 


In Isa. xxv. 8 it is said that God will swallow up death—the 
death which came by the hand of the Assyrian.* In the 
Prophet’s vision the deliverance from death is limited by the 
necessities of his own age. The Apostle’s view is much wider. 
He knows that all death will be swallowed up now that Christ 
has conquered death by rising again. The doom pronounced 
upon Adam (Gen. iii. 19) is removed; and the result (eis) is 
victory, absolute and everlasting triumph. Death is annihilated, 
and God is all in all. This thought makes the Apostle burst 
out into a song of triumph of death which is a free adaptation of 
another prophetic utterance. With the constr. compare v. 29. 


It is not certain that 7d POaprov 7. évd. apO. xal is part of the true text. 
ABDEKLP, Syrr., Chrys. support the reading; %*C*IM, Vulg. 
Copt. Aeth. Goth. Arm. omit. Accidental omission is possible. Deliberate 
insertion in conformity with the preceding v. is also possible. The balance 
seems to be in favour of retaining the words ; and the rhythmical solemnity 
of the passage seems to require them. 

In LXX, els vixos=‘for ever’ (2 Sam. ii. 26; Job xxxvi. 7; Amos 
i. II, viii. 7; etc.). Tertullian read vetcos: he renders 27 contentzonem or 
in contentione (De res. carn. 51, 54). So also Cyprian ( Zes?. iii. 58). 


55. od cou, Odvate, TS vikos; ‘Where is that victory of yours,’ 
hitherto so universal and so feared? It is annihilated (i. 20; 
Rom. iii. 27). The fear that hath punishment (1 John iv. 18) 
has vanished, and the transition out of death into life (John 
v. 24; 1 John iii. 14) has taken place. By xévtpovy death is 
represented as a venomous creature, a scorpion or a hornet, 
which is rendered harmless, when it is deprived of its sting. 
The serpent has lost its poison-fang. The word is used of a 
‘goad’ (Acts xxvi. 14; Prov. xxvi. 3); of the ‘sting’ of a bee 
(4 Macc. xiv. 19); of the ‘sting’ of the infernal locusts (Rev. 
1X. 10). 


In Hos. xiii. 14, the Heb. and the LXX differ, and the differences have 
affected the text here, scribes having been influenced by one or the other. 
The vikos clause should precede the xévtpov clause (§ BCIM 17, Vulg. 
Copt.), and @dvare is right in both clauses (§ BC DEF GI, Latt. Copt.) 
rather than ddn (K LM P, Syrr. Arm. Goth. Aeth.). St Paul never uses 
dons, perhaps because the word might have erroneous associations for Greek 
readers. The AV. has ‘sting’ before ‘victory,’ and ‘grave’ for ‘death’ in 
the ‘ victory’ clause. 


56. The thought of death deprived of its sting suggests the 
thoughts of sin and of the law; for it was by sin that death 
acquired power over man, and it is because there is a law to be 
transgressed that sin is possible (Rom. v. 13; vii. 7). Where 
there is no law, there may be faults, but there can be no rebellion, 

* Theodotion has the same wording as St Paul, xarewé@y 6 Ody. els v. 


Aquila, ckaramrovrice: Tov Ody. els v, LXX, the unintelligible carémev 6 Odvaros 
loxvoas. 


XV. 56-58] ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 379 


no conscious defiance of what authority has prescribed. But 
against law there may be rebellion, and rebellion merits death. 
Christ by His obedience had law on His side and conquered 
. death, because death was not His due. When the Christian is 
clothed with immortality, and all that is mortal is dissolved or 
absorbed, then sin will be abolished and the restrictions of law 
will be meaningless. The verse harmonizes with the context, 
and there is no need to suspect that it is a gloss. On the 
Trelation of sin to death see Hort on Jas. i. 15. 


57. 1@ 8€ Oc@ xdpis. Sudden transition to thanksgiving, as in 
a Cor nu. ¥4; Rom. vil 25> 1 Tim. i 17. 

TO SiSovte Hpiv Td vixos. Pres. partic.; ‘Who is giving us 
the victory’: it is a process which is continually going on, as 
Christians appropriate what has been won for them by Christ, 
and in His strength conquer sin; 2 Cor. xii. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 8; 
comp. Rom. vill. 37.* Quite naturally, St Paul retains the rarer 
form vixes, which has already been used (vv. 54, 55). In LXX, 
vikos is nearly as common as viky (1 John v. 4). 


. 58. Practical result of this great assurance. They must get 
rid of the unsettled and unfruitful state of mind caused by 
habitual scepticism, and must learn to be firmly seated, so as to 
be able to resist the false teaching and other hostile forces that 
would carry them away (Col. i. 23). Let there be less specula- 
tion and more work. See Thorburn, Zhe Resurrection Narratives, 
pp. 183 f., on modern speculations. 

“Qote. See on xiv. 39. Compare especially Phil. iv. 1, where, 
as here, the Apostle adds dyamnroi to ddeApot: he rarely uses 
both words, but either dyamyrot (x. 14) or ddeAdot (iii. 1 ; iv. 6, 
etc.). Here he desires to assure them that, in spite of the severe 
language which he has sometimes employed, there is no diminu- 
tion in his affection: comp. iv. 14. ost multas correctiones, non 
solum fratres, sed et dilectos appellat, ut saltem hoc remedtio sublevati 
ad pristinam fidem reverterentur (Atto). 

ESpaior yiveobe. Not, ‘continue to be,’ but, ‘become, prove 
yourselves to be’ (x. 32, xi. 1). They have still much to learn ; 
they are not yet stable either in belief or behaviour (vz. 2, 33). 
They need to be rH micrer reeweAwpevor in order to become 
édpato. tH miata (Ign. Ephes. 10): comp. Polycarp Phi. 10, 
where this is quoted. He is speaking @s caAevopevors. He says 
épetaktyytor, ‘unmoveable’ (here only), not a«ivyro., ‘unmoved’ : 
they must not allow themselves to be loosed from their moorings ; 
comp. Arist. Z¢h. Vic. 1. iv. 3. 

TepiacevorTes ev TH Epyw Tod Kupiou mavtote. Every word tells. 
In the abundance of results they may be equal to Apostles 


* D and Chrys. have dévrt, Vulg. gud dedit, which spoils the sense. 


380 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XvV. 58 


(v. 10); but it must be in work, not in disputation ; and in the 
Lord’s work, which He always has ready for each one of His 
servants to do; and there must be no relaxing of effort, no 
shirking. This involves xozos, wearisome toil. But what of that, 
with the full knowledge which they possess of what the conditions 
are? Ti XA€yets; waAdw koros; “AAAG otedavous Exwv, Kal trép TOY 
ovpavev (Chrys.). 

6 Kétros Spay odk e€otw Kevds ev Kupiw. This may mean either 
that the effort of doing the work of the Lord abundantly is no 
idle pastime, or that it is not fruitless, but is sure to have blessed 
results here and hereafter; vv. 10 and 14 favour the latter. If 
there were no Resurrection, their labour would be fruitless ; but 
in such conditions as have been established, in such an atmo- 
sphere as that in which they work, viz. év Kupiw, that is im- 
possible. We need not confine év Kupiw to xevds, still less to 
xo7os, from which it is too far removed; it probably belongs to 
the whole sentence. The Apostle goes on to give them an 
illustration of doing God’s work. 


ADDITIONAL NOTE ON XV. 42-44. 


A considerable number of scholars, and among them J. H. 
Bernard, R. H. Charles, G. G. Findlay, and W. Milligan, contend 
that oveiperas in vv. 42-44 cannot refer to the ‘sowing’ of the 
corpse in the ground. No such use of o7zeipewv, it is said, has 
been produced. Moreover, the analogy about the difference 
between the seed sown and the plant that rises from it shows 
that St Paul cannot mean burial when he speaks of ‘sowing.’ 
His argument is that the seed is of dead when it is sown, but 
that it must die before it is quickened. In the animal world, 
death precedes burial ; but, in vegetation, the burial of the seed 
precedes death, the death that is necessary for the new life. The 
same holds good of John xii. 24, where zecwyv eis rHv ypv is used 
for being sown, and the ‘falling into the earth’ precedes the 
dying. In human existence, what precedes the death that 
prepares the way for resurrection is life in this world, and this is 
what is meant by o7ecperar.* The vital germ is placed in 


* Calvin points out this interpretation as a possible alternative ; aut sz 
mavis, tllam similitudinem retinens praesentis vitae tempus metaphorice 
sationt comparat. The original meaning of severe is ‘to bring forth’; on 
temere nec fortutto sati et creatt sumus (Cic. Tusc, 1. xlix. 118). He speaks 
of a maturttatem serendi generis humant; quod sparsum in terras atque 
satum, divino auctum sit animorum munere (De Leg. 1. ix. 24). 


XVI. 1-4] PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 381 


material surroundings, like seed in soil, and continues in them 
until death sets the vitality free to begin a new career under far 
more glorious conditions. With this interpretation the contra- 
diction involved in calling a corpse a cdma Wvyikdr is avoided ; 
and the sudden intrusion of the thought of burial, which occurs 
nowhere in the argument from v. 12 onwards, is avoided also. 

It is possible that this is correct; nevertheless, the marked 
inclusion of Christ’s burial (kat o7« érady) in the very brief Creed 
given in vv. 3, 4, gives considerable support to the common 
interpretation. Moreover, sowing is a very natural figure to use 
respecting the dead body of one who is to rise again. 


XVI. PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL: THE CONCLUSION. 


The Epistle now rapidly draws to an end with a number of 
brief directions, communications, salutations, exhortations, and 
good wishes. It will suffice to make six subdivisions; (2) The 
Collection for the Poor at Jerusalem, 1-4; (4) St Paul’s intended 
Visit to Corinth, 5-9; (c) Timothy and Apollos commended, 
to-12; (d) Exhortation interjected, 13, 14; (e) Directions 
respecting Stephanas and others, 15-18; (f) Concluding 
Salutations, Warning, and Benediction, 19-24. 


1-4. Here, as at xv. 49, the Apostle suddenly descends from 
very lofty heights to matters of ordinary experience. It is as if 
he had suddenly checked himself in his triumphant rhapsody 
with the thought that ‘the work of the Lord’ in this life must be 
attended to. There is still much labour to be undertaken by 
those who still remain alive waiting for the final victory, and he 
must return to business. 

St Paul had the collection of money for the poorer members 
of the Church in Jerusalem very much at heart, as is seen from 
this passage and 2 Cor. viii., ix., with which should be compared 
Rom. xv. 26, Gal. ii. 10, and Acts xxiv. 17. In “the ablest and 
most convincing section of Paley’s Horae Paulinae” (ii. 1) it is 
shown how these four passages, while having each their distinctive 
features, “fit and dovetail into one another and thus imply that 
all are historical.” We thus have “singular evidence of the 
genuineness ” of the documents which contain these different but 
thoroughly consistent accounts. See Sanday and Headlam 


382 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XVI. 14 


(p. 413), and Jowett (p. 419), on Rom. xv. 29; also the Camé. 
Grk. Test. on 2 Cor. viii. and ix. The directions given here are 
so brief that we may suppose that the Corinthians already knew 
a good deal about the matter, possibly from Titus, who may 
have been in Corinth before this. Moreover, Titus may have 
been the bearer of this letter, and in that case would be able to 
tell them in detail what the Apostle desired them to do. We 
know that Titus did organize the collection at Corinth. In 
2 Cor. ix. 1, St Paul says that ‘it is superfluous for him to write’ 
on the subject. Nevertheless, in his intense anxiety about the 
fund, he says a great deal more than he says here, supporting 
the appeal with strong arguments. 

His anxiety about the collection is very intelligible. The 
distress at Jerusalem was great and constant. Jews often made 
collections for impoverished Jews; Christians must do at least 
as much. It was specially to be wished that Gentile Christians 
should help Jewish Christians, and thus promote better feeling 
between the two bodies. Still more was it to be wished that 
Christians at Corinth, where the Apostle’s work was regarded 
with suspicion and dislike by the Jewish party, should send 
liberal help to Christians at Jerusalem, where the suspicion and 
dislike originated. This would prove two things; (1) that his 
Apostolic authority was effectual in a Gentile Church, and (2) 
that he had loyal affection for the Church at Jerusalem. 

Augustine suggests that the poverty at Jerusalem was the 
result of the community of goods (Acts iv. 32), a view that is 
still held, and is probably part of the explanation: communism 
without careful organization of labour is sure to end in disaster. 
But there were other causes. Jerusalem had a pauperized 
population, dependent on the periodical influx of visitors. The 
Jewish world, from Cicero’s time at least, supported the poor of 
Jerusalem by occasional subventions. As the Christian Jews 
came to be regarded as a distinct body, they would lose their 
share in these doles; and the ‘communism’ of Acts iv. 32 was 
but a temporary remedy. Most of the converts were, therefore, 
poor at the outset. They were probably ‘boycotted’ and other- 
wise persecuted by the unconverted Jews (1 Thess. ii. 14; Jas. ii. 6, 
v. 1-6), and their position would be similar to that of Hindoo 
Christians excluded from their caste, or Protestants in the West 
of Ireland. And the belief that ‘the Lord was at hand’ (v. 22) 


XVI. 1] PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 383 


may have checked industry at Jerusalem, as it did at Thessalonica 
(2 Thess. ili. 10; Dédache xii.). See Knowling on Acts xx. 4, 
p. 422; Beet on 2 Cor. vill. 15, pp. 426f.; Hort, Romans and 
Ephesians, pp. 39f., 173; Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller, 
pp. 287f.; Rendall, Zxpositor, Nov. 1893, p. 321. 


1. Mepi 8€ tis Noyfas. The abrupt transition leads us to 
suppose that the Corinthians had asked about the matter: comp. 
Vil. I, Vili. 1, xl. r, At any rate the sudden introduction of this 
topic implies that they were already acquainted with it; comp. 
the sudden transition to Apollos inv. 12. St Paul uses seven 
words in speaking of this collection ; Aoyia (v. 1); xdpis (v. 3; 
2 Cor. viil. 4); xowwwvia (2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13; Rom. xv. 26); 
diaxovia (2 Cor. vili. 4, ix. I, 12, 13); ddpdrys (2 Cor. viii. 20); 
evAoyia (2 Cor. ix. 5); Aevroupyia (2 Cor. ix. 12); to which may 
be added éAenpoovvar (Acts xxiv. 17, in the report of his speech 
before Felix) and zpoogopat (zé7d.). The classical word ovAAoyy 
is not found in N.T.; in LXX, only of David’s scrip (1 Sam, 
xvii. 40). It used to be supposed that Aoyia or Aoyeta was found 
only here and in ecclesiastical writers (Ellicott ad /oc., Suicer, ii. 
p. 247); and Edwards thought that St Paul had coined the 
word. Deissmann (Lib/e Studies, pp. 142 f.) shows that it was 
“used in Egypt from the 2nd cent. B.c. at the latest,” and gives 
various examples from papyri: in one, Aoyeta is associated with 
Aerovpyia. He thinks that in 2 Cor. ix. 5 the first esAoyiav may 
be a corruption of Aoyetav. See also Light, pp. 104, 366. 

eis Tols dylous. He does not mean that the Christians at 
Jerusalem were in a special sense ‘holy’; he indicates wy the 
Corinthians ought to give. Those in need are their fellow- 
Christians (i. 2; 2 Cor. i. 1): ste mavult dicere quam ‘ pauperes’ ; 
td facit ad impetrandum (Beng.). He perhaps also indicates 
that those in need were the source and original headquarters of 
the Corinthians’ Christianity (Rom. xv. 27). Although he does 
not say so, we might suppose from this passage that all the 
Jerusalem Christians were poverty-stricken. Rom. xv. 26 shows 
that this was not so: it was eis trovs mrwxovs TOv dyiwy Tov év "lep, 
that the xowwvia was to be made. With this use of eis c. acc. for 
the dat. commodi comp. 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. I, 13: it is found in 
LXX, and is probably not a Hebraism but an Alexandrian idiom. 
It is found in papyri; Deissmann, pp. 117 f. 

domep Si€taga tats éxkd. t. F. ‘Just as 1 made arrangements 
for the Churches of Galatia.’ There is a tone of authority in the 
verb; as Chrysostom remarks, ‘‘He did not say, ‘I exhorted 
and advised,’ but, ‘I made arrangements,’ as being more absolute ; 
and he does not cite the case of one city, but of a whole nation.” 
And the compound verb indicates that de/az/ed directions had 


384 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XVI 1, 2 


been given to the Galatians,—possibly by St Paul in person. 
What follows is no doubt a summary of these directions, to be 
enlarged by Titus. ‘The Churches of Galatia’ are mentioned 
to show the Corinthians that they are not the only Gentiles who 
are asked to contribute to the support of Jewish Christians, 
and also to move them to imitate such good examples. Ga/at- 
arum exemplum Corinthiis, Corinthiorum exemplum Macedonibus 
(2 Cor. ix. 2), Corinthiorum et Macedonum Romanis (Rom. xv. 
26) proponit (Beng.). 

olTws Kal Gpets momoate. ‘So also do you act.’ He writes 
with confidence: he has only to give directions, and they are 
sure to be followed. There is none of the anxious pleading of 
2 Cor. viii., ix. And it was perhaps this apparent peremptoriness 
which his opponents used as an argument against him. See 
G. H. Rendall, p. 107. We may infer from this that the plan 
adopted in Galatia had not proved unsuccessful. The dovep ... 
ovrws implies that the details of that plan are to be exactly 
followed, and ipeis is emphatic (Gal. 11. 10). We need not 
infer from Gal. vi. 6, 7, that the appeal to the Galatians had 
failed; the Apostle is writing there respecting the support of 
teachers in Galatia, not of the poor at Jerusalem. 


2. kata pilav oaBBdrov. ‘On every first day of the week.’ 
The expression is Hebraistic; Mark xvi. 2; Luke xxiv. 1; John 
xx. I, 19; Acts xx. 7. For the sing. oa8Barov =‘ week,’ Luke 
xviii. 12; [Mark xvi. 9]. This is our earliest evidence respecting 
the early consecration of the first day of the week by the 
Apostolic Church. Apparently, the name ‘ Lord’s Day’ was not 
yet in use, and the first day of the week is never called ‘the 
sabbath’ in Scripture. If it was right to do good on the Jewish 
sabbath (Matt. xii. 12; Mark iii. 4), how much more on the 
Lord’s Day? kai yap % )pepa ixavyn jw dyayetv cis eAXenuootyyy, 
for it reminded them of the untold blessings which they had 
received (Chrys.). Hastings, DB. iii. p. 140; D. Chr. Ant. ii. 
p. 2031; Knowling, Zest. of St Paul to Christ, pp. 281 f. 

éxaotos Suav. It is assumed that every one, however poor, 
will give something ; but the giving is to be neither compulsory 
nor oppressive. Some of them would be slaves. 

map éauvt® ti0étTw Onoaupitwr. This cannot mean, ‘Let 
him assign a certain sum as he is disposed, and put it into the 
Church treasury.’ It is improbable that at that time there was 
any Church treasury, and not until much later was money 
collected during public worship. Each is to lay by something 
weekly ‘in his own house, forming a little hoard, which will 
become a heavenly treasure’ (Matt. vi. 19-21; Luke xii. 21). 
Chrysostom says that the accumulation was to be made in private, 


XVI. 2] PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 385 


because the additions might be so small that the donor would 
be ashamed to make them in the congregation. The Apostle 
virtually says, ‘Become a guardian of holy possessions, a self- 
elected steward of the poor’—yevod vAa€ xpnpdtwv tepdv, adto- 
XepoTovyTOS oikovojos TevATwY.* 

6 Tt Gv evodatat. ‘Whatsoever he may prosper in,’ ‘ whatever 
success he may have,’ ‘whereinsoever he is prospered by God’ ; 
quod pro Det benignitate licuerit (Beza). The idea of a prosperous 
journey (6dds)has dropped out of the word. ‘The verb is frequent 
in this more general sense in LXX, especially in Chronicles, 
Daniel, and Tobit: comp. the Testaments, Judah i. 6; Gad. vii. 
r. It is not certain what tense evodwrat is. WH. (ii. App. p. 
172) decide for the perfect; either e’ddwra, perf. indic., or 
evodarar, a very rare perf. mid. subjunctive. J. H. Moulton 
(Gr. 1. p. 54) follows Blass and Findlay in deciding for the pres. 
subj., which seems to be more probable. In any case, the 
meaning is that the amount is to be fixed by the giver in pro- 
portion to his weekly gains ; and there is no dictation as to the 
right proportion, whether a tenth, or more, or less. A tenth is 
little for some, impossible for others; but week by week each 
would see how much or how little he had got, and would act 
accordingly. 

iva ph Stay €XOw Tote Aoyiar yivwytar. ‘So that, whenever 
I come, collections may not be going on then.’+ Each will have 
his contribution ready, instead of having to decide at the 
last moment how much he ought to give, and how the money 
is to be found. St Paul does not wish to go round begging, 
when he comes; he will have other things to do. Moreover, he 
does not wish to put pressure upon them by asking in person 
(2 Cor. ix. 7): he desires to leave them quite free. The rore is 
emphatic ; ‘then’ would be the worst possible time. 


aa88arwy (K L M) is an obvious correction of the less usual caBBarou 
(ABCDEFGIP): &%* has caBBarw. For dv, BI M have éav. evoddrar 
(8*B DEF GLP) is to be preferred to evodH0y (ACI KM), Vulg. has 
guod et bene placuerit, which seems to imply a reading 6 71 éav evdoxy, and 
Latin translations of Chrys. have guod stb¢ videatur ox videbttur. odrav 
evod@rat is pure conjecture. 


* Calvin remarks that Christians, who know that they have God for their 
debtor, ought to feel the blessedness of giving, when even a heathen poet 
(Mart. v. 42) could write, Quas dederis solas semper habebis opes: and 
Primasius says that by giving a little at a time they will not feel oppressed, 
and so can be the cheerful givers who are beloved by God. Compare kat 
cuviyayov apytpiy Kaba éxdorou jdvvaro 7 xelp (Bar. i. 6). 

+ It illustrates the caprice of the AV. that in v. 1 Aoyla is rendered 
‘collection,’ and in wv. 2 ‘gathering.’ Tyndale and the Genevan have 
‘gathering’ in both places, while the Rhemish has ‘collection’ in both. 
Contrast the é7ay in 2, 3, 5 with the édy in Io. 


25 


386 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XVI 8 


3. Grav 8€ mapayévwpat «.7.A. ‘But whenever I arrive, 
whomsoever ye may approve, these with letters (commendatory) 
will I send to take your bounty to Jerusalem.’ He is represented 
as using the same verb respecting this subject in his speech 
before Felix (Acts xxiv. 17); éAenpootvas roujowv eis TO EOvos prov 
mapeyevopnv. AV., RV., and various modern scholars take 6 
erictoAov With doxyzdaonre, in which case the letters are written by 
the Corinthians as credentials for the delegates to be sent to 
Jerusalem with the money: so also Arm., Calv., Beza. But it is 
more natural to take the words with zéuw, in front of which 
they are placed in emphatic contrast to ov éwoi which is similarly 
placed before zopedcovra. He will either write letters with 
which to send the delegates (2 Cor. iii. 1; Acts ix. 2), or he will 
take the delegates with himself. The delegates were not to be 
sent off until the Apostle arrived at Corinth. What need, there- 
fore, for the Corinthians to write letters? Syr., Copt., Aeth., 
Chrys., Tisch., Treg., and others take 6c’ é. with réuyw. *£ Letters’ 
is probably a true plural, not the “plural of category.” The 
Apostle would write to more than one person at Jerusalem.* 

In N.T., doxipalew often implies that what has been tested 
(iii. 13) has stood the test and been approved (xi. 28; Rom. i. 
28, li. 18; 1 Thess. ii. 4, where see Milligan), as here. Just as 
St Paul does not dictate what proportion of their gains they 
ought to give, so he does not select the bearers of the fund, still 
less claim to have charge of it himself. In no case will he do that, 
to avoid all suspicion of enriching himself out of it. Those who 
find the money are to entrust it to persons tested and approved 
by themselves, and these persons are to have letters from the 
Apostle as credentials, unless he goes himself. The two aorists, 
rapayévopar and doxidonre, indicate that his arrival and the 
selection of the delegates are regarded as contemporaneous. t 

Very often aodépew does not mean ‘carry away’ so much 
as ‘take home, ‘bring fo its destination, and in some cases 
‘bring dack.’ It was not the removal of the money from Corinth, 
but its being conveyed to Jerusalem, that was the important 
point: comp. Luke xvi. 22. And he speaks of it as their 
‘gracious gift,’ rv xapww byav (2 Cor. vill. 4-7, 19), deneficentiam 
vestram (Beza), because he would regard it as free bounty, like 
the graciousness of God. 


* In Galatians, St Paul uses the later Graecized political form ’Ieporé\uya 
of the actual city (i. 17, 18, ii. 1), and the ancient theocratic Hebrew form 
"Tepoveadnu of the typical city (iv. 25, 26; comp. Heb. xii. 22; Rev. iii. 12 ; 
xxl. 2, 10). But here and Rom. xv. 19, 25, 26, 31 he uses "Iepovoadju of 
the actual city, ‘‘lovingly and reverently,” as of the mother Church and the 
home of suffering saints. See Deissmann, Azb/e Studies, p. 316. 

+ Papyri seem to show that ods éav doxiudonre was a phrase in common 
use. On commendatory letters see Deissmann, Light, p. 158. 


XVI. 4-5} PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 387 


4, édv 8€ dgéiov 7 Tod Kdpe mopeveo9ar. ‘But if it be fit that 
I also should go.’ The agov is purposely put without a sub- 
stantive, and zropeveoGa is used in its common sense of going ona 
mission, going with a purpose, with a work to be done: see West- 
cott on John vii. 33. ‘If the amount collected makes it worth 
while for e also to go on this business’ is another possible mean- 
ing. He could not abandon other work in order to present a 
paltry sum ; and an Apostle could not take the lead in so unworthy 
a mission. It would look like approving niggardliness. There is 
no pride of office here, but proper respect for himself and them. 
It is with consciousness of his authority that he says, ‘they shall 
go with me,’ not ‘I will go with them.’ 

Were the Corinthians niggardly, or at least somewhat backward 
in giving? One is inclined to think so by the doubt expressed 
here: see also ix. 11, 12; 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9, xii. 13. No Corinthian 
delegates are mentioned Acts xx. 4. That might mean that the 
Corinthians sent their contribution independently. But it might 
mean that they were not represented because their contribution 
was so small. St Paul twice went to Jerusalem with money for 
the poor (Acts xi. 29, 30, xxiv. 17). It was perhaps because he 
was known to have charge of such funds that he was expected 
by Felix to pay for his release (xxiv. 26). 


5-9. He gives further information about the proposed (z. 3) 
visit to Corinth. He will come, but he must postpone his visit 
for the present. This postponement will be compensated by the 
increased length of his visit, when he does come; and they will 
be able to help him for his next journey. He cannot, however, 
leave Ephesus just yet, for there is great opportunity for 
good work, and his presence there is necessary. This will give 
them all the more time for laying money by for the Jerusalem 


poor. 


5. dtav M. 8€hOw, M. yap S:€pxonat. ‘Whenever I shall have 
journeyed through Macedonia, for I intend journeying through 
M.’ In Acts (xiii. 6, xiv. 24, xv. 3, 41, XVill. 23, xix. 1, 21, Xx. 2), 
diépxouae seems to be almost a technical term for a missionary 
tour or evangelistic journey, the district traversed being in the 
accusative without a preposition: Ramsay, St Pau/, pp. 72, 384; 
Knowling on Acts xiii. 6. In contrast to this tour through 
Macedonia he intends making a long stay (rapapev®) at Corinth. 

The erroneous note at the end of this Epistle, “ written from 
Philippi,” is based on a misunderstanding of d&épxouac: as if it 
meant ‘I am at the present moment passing through M..’ instead 
of ‘M. I pass through,’ ze. ‘such is my intention; I make no 
long stay anywhere.’ It is clear from v. 8 that he writes from 
Ephesus. 


388 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (XVI. 6,7 


6. mpds Suas Sé tuxdv mapapevd. ‘But with yow (first, in 
emphatic contrast to Macedonia) perchance I shall stay or even 
winter.’ With zpos tuas comp. Gal. i. 18; Matt. xiii. 56; and see 
Westcott on John i. 1 and 1 Johni. 2. The zpés implies more 
than pera or ovv, and means ‘in active intercourse with you.’ 
The acc. abs. rvxov is not found elsewhere in Biblical Greek, but 
it occurs in Plato and Xenophon: * comp. the colloquial “happen 
I shall come.” In xiv. 10, ei rvxo.. His remaining at Corinth 
through the winter might be necessary, because navigation then 
would be perilous or impossible. After 14th Sept. navigation 
was considered dangerous; after 11th Nov. it ceased till 5th 
March: see Blass on Acts xxvii. 9; Ramsay, S¢ Pau/, p. 322; 
and Zahn, Jntroduction to N.T., 1. p. 319. Orellion Hor. Od. 1. 
iv. 2 quotes Vegetius, De ve mil. v. 9, ex die iit. Id. Novembr. 
usqgue in diem vt. ld. Mart. maria claudt. 

iva Gpets pe mpotépyynte «.t.A. ‘In order that vou may be 
the people to set me forward on my journey, whithersoever I 
may go.’ He would rather have his ‘send-off’ from them. For 
this, mpowéu7ew is the usual verb (2 Cor. i. 16; Rom. xv. 24; 
Acts xv. 3, etc.). He is not asking for money or provisions ; 
the verb does not necessarily mean more than good wishes and 
prayers. The last clause is purposely indefinite (ob éay 7.). He 
may go to Jerusalem, but that depends upon various circum- 
stances. With ot for of comp. Luke x. 1, xxiv. 28; it is freq. in 
late Greek (Gen. xx. 13, xxviii. 15; etc.). 

WH., following BM 67, prefer xarayevS to rapauerd (RACDE 
FGIP). There would be temptation to make the verb similar to mapa- 
xeuudow, all the more so as mapayuévewy is more common (Phil. i. 25 ; 


Heb. vii. 23; Jas. i. 25) than xarauévew (Acts i. 13). Nevertheless the 
balance for rapasevG is considerable. 


7. ob} O€X\w yap Spas apt. év tapddw idetv. ‘For I do not 
care in your case to get a sight (aor.) just in passing.’+ For 
the third time in two verses mpos tas, tpets, tas), he lays an 
affectionate emphasis on the pronoun. In the case of such 
friends as they are, a mere passing visit would be very unsatisfying ; 
all the more so, because there is much to be arranged at Corinth 
(xi. 34). There is no emphasis on dpzu, as if he meant, ‘I paid 
a passing visit to you once, and it was so painful that I do not 
mean to repeat the experiment now.’ The apr: fits in well with 
the hypothesis of a previous short visit (2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1), 

*TIt has been found in a letter written on a leaden tablet from Athens 
about B.c. 400 (Deissmann, Mew Light on the N.T., p. 56). 

+ With this use of rdpodos compare I Sam. xii. 4, #AGe mdpodos Tw avdpl 
T@ wAovolw, ‘there came a v7sz¢ to the rich man’ ; and Wisd. ii. 5, where life 
is called oxids mdpodos, the ‘passing of a shadow.’ In Gen. xxxviii. 14, év 


mapédw seems to mean ‘on a by-way’ or ‘ by the wayside’ (see Skinner 
ad loc.), The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. 


XVI. 7, 8] PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 389 


but it does not imply it: it need not be much stronger than 
‘just.’ But he is thinking less of their need of him to keep them 
in order (zam et medicus tbi moram habet ubi plures aegrotant), 
than of his need of them to satisfy his yearning. Lightfoot, 
who contends for the previous short visit, says that this passage 
cannot be used as evidence for it (4zdlical Essays, p. 275, note). 

xpovov tua. Emphatic: ‘For I am hoping to stay on in 
intercourse with you for some little time.’ He is looking forward 
to living among them. He does not say ‘to stay on at Corinth’: 
it is the people, not the place, that he cares about. Excepting 
i. 2, he never mentions Corinth, and then only as their home. 

édv 6 Kuptos émtpépy. It is of no importance whether 
this means God or Christ. But there may be point in the 
change from @eAjon (iv. 19), ‘If the Lord w2//s me to do this 
painful thing,’ to ézurpéyy, ‘If He allows me this pleasure’ 
(Heb. vi. 3). This, however, cannot be pressed: Jas. iv. 15; 
Acts xviil. 21. St Paul’s own practice shows that it is not 
necessary always to express this condition when announcing 
one’s plans (v. 5;-Rom. xv. 28; Acts xix. 21). Ben Sira is 
said to have ruled that no one ought to say that he will do 
anything without first saying, “If the Lord will”; and both 
St Paul and St James may be influenced by a form of Jewish 
piety which was sure to commend itself to Christians. Mayor 
on James iv. 15 has collected various examples from Greek 
and Roman writers, but the O.T. does not supply any. Deiss- 
mann (Bible Studies, p. 252) gives several illustrations from 
papyri; and see Eur. A/c. 780-5. Hort (Romans and Ephesians, 
pp. 42 f.) points out how uncertain St Paul’s future must have 
seemed to him (Rom. i. 10). 


‘For I hope’ (RV.) is to be preferred to ‘But I trust’ (AV.): éArlgw 
yip (NABCDEFGIMP), édmligw 6é (KL): émitpéyn (NA BCIM), 
émuirpétn (DEF GK). 


8. ‘But I propose to stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost.’ 
Evidently he is writing in or near Ephesus, and probably about 
Easter (v. 7, xv. 20). At that time navigation would have 
begun again, and therefore it would be possible for him to 
come. It does not much matter whether we read émpevo 
(=7apapevd, rapaxepaow) or éemipevw (= drépxopar): in either 
case he is expressing his intention. WH. prefer ézipevw, ‘I am 
staying on.’ Pentecost is probably mentioned as a rough 
indication of time, a few weeks later. He does not mean 
that he must keep the Feast of Pentecost at Ephesus. His 
reasons for staying on are quite different. There is a grand 
opening for effectual work, and there is a powerful opposition : 
he must utilize the one and check the other. 


390 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS { XVI. 9,10 


9. Bipa ydp por dvéwyev peyddn kal évepyyjs. ‘For a door 
is standing open for me, great and effective.’ The metaphor 
of a door for an opportunity is simple enough (2 Cor. it. 12; 
Col. iv. 3, where see Lightfoot). In all three places an opening 
for preaching the Gospel seems to be meant, although in 
2 Cor. ii. 12 the meaning might be that Troas was a good 
avenue for reaching the country beyond (Ramsay in Hastings, 
DB. iv. p. 814). It is possible that eivodos is used in a similar 
sense 1 Thess. i. 9, ii. t. In Acts xiv. 27 the ‘door’ is opened 
to the hearers, not to the preachers. But it is not quite clear 
what évepyys means, or in what sense a door can be called 
évepyys. Probably St Paul is thinking more of the opportunity 
than of the ‘door.’ The ‘door’ means an opportunity, and 
he applies to it an epithet which suits the fact better than 
the symbol. It may mean either ‘effective, influential, pro- 
ductive of good results,’ or ‘calling for much activity, full of 
employment’; Philem. 6; Heb. iv. 12. In Heb. iv. 12, the 
Vulg. has efficax; in Philem. 6 and here, evidens (other Latin 
texts, manifesta), which is a translation of évapyys, a word 
which is not found in Biblical Greek; nor is évepyjs found in 
LXX. On the ‘opened door’ given to the Church in Phil- 
adelphia (Rev. iii. 8), see Swete ad /oc. and Ramsay, Letters to 
the Seven Churches, p. 404. See also Deissmann, Light, p. 302. 

dytukeiwevot toddot. ‘There are many opposing my entrance,’ 
hindering him from making use of the great opportunity (Phil. 
i. 20), Among these are the wild beasts of xv. 32, and they 
would include both Jews and heathen. Acts xix. shows how 
true this estimate of the situation proved. ‘‘The superstition 
of all Asia was concentrated at Ephesus. Throughout the early 
centuries the city mob, superstitious, frivolous, swayed by the 
most common-place motives, was everywhere the most dangerous 
and unfailing enemy of Christianity, and often carried the 
imperial officials further than they wished in the way of perse- 
cution ” (Ramsay, St Pau/, p. 277). But this determines St Paul, 
not to fly, but to stay on: guod alios terruisset, Paulum invitat 
(Grotius). 


The intransitive dvéwyey is late Greek for dvéyxrat. 


10-12. His intended stay at Corinth reminds him of the 
visit which Timothy is to pay in preparation for his (iv. 17) ; 
and the thought of the helper who has already started reminds 
him of another helper, Apollos, who refuses to start at present. 


10. *Edy 8€ EXO T. Timothy had been sent with Erastus 
from Ephesus to Corinth; but as he had to go through Mace- 
donia (Acts xix. 22), and as his time was limited (v. 11), St Paul 
did not feel sure that he would reach Corinth; and he possibly 


XVI.10,11] PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 391 


did not do so. In 2 Cor. we read a good deal about the visit of 
Titus to Corinth, but nothing is said about Timothy’s visit. On 
the other hand, while the Apostle explains and defends his own 
changes of plan about visiting Corinth, he says nothing about 
Timothy’s having failed to visit them. If Timothy is the aduxnOeis 
of 2 Cor. vil. 12, he must have reached Corinth and have been 
grossly insulted by some one; but more probably the dduxndeis is 
St Paul himself. Timothy was in Macedonia when 2 Cor. was 
written (i. 1), and perhaps had never been further.* 

Brérete tva dddBws yévntat mpds Suds. ‘See that he comes 
to feel at home with you without fear’: comp. Col. iv. 17; 
2 John 8; but Prézere py (viii. 9, x. 12; Gal. v. 15; Col. 
ii. 8, etc.) is more common than PAéemere iva. They are to 
take care that there is no painful awkwardness in Timothy’s 
intercourse with them. Was Timothy timid? There are 
passages which agree with such a supposition, although they 
do not necessarily imply it (1 Tim. v. 21-23; 2 Tim. i. 6-8, 
ii. 15.3, 15, iv. 3, 2). see Hastings, DZ. iv. p. 768). He was 
certainly young, for some eight years later St Paul still speaks 
of his vedrns (t Tim. iv. 12); and the Corinthians could certainly 
be rude, even to the Apostle himself (2 Cor. x. 10). 

‘For he is working the work of the Lord (xv. 58), as I 
also am.’ Therefore, if they put difficulties in Timothy’s way, 
they will be hindering the work which God has given to the 
Apostle to do: iv. 17; Phil. 19-21. 


Kayo (NACKLP), xal éys (DEFG), éys (BM 67). WH. adopt 
the last, on the same evidence as xatayer® (v. 6). In Luke ii. 48, 
xvi. 9, and Acts x. 26, kal éyw seems to be right ; almost everywhere else 
kay is the better reading, but the evidence is frequently divided. In 
the three exceptions the éy is rather pointedly co-ordinated with some - 
one else. See Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 96. 


11. py tis obv adtév efoufevyon. ‘Let no one therefore 
set him at nought—treat him as of no account’ (i. 28, vi. 4; 
2 Cor. x. 10; Gal. iv. 14; 1 Thess. v. 20). Except Mark ix. 12, 
the verb is found only in Paul and Luke. It is stronger than 
xatappoveirw (t Tim. iv. 12; comp. xi. 22). Beng. quotes, 
vewTepos ey eipt kal efovdevwpévos (Ps. cxiv. 141: adolescentulus 
sum ego et contemptus; but here the Vulg. has sfernat, with 
contemnere for katadpoveiv. 

év eipyvn. To be taken with zporéuare, not with iva 
€\6y, which would have little point. ‘When he departs, let 
him see that he has your good will, and that he leaves no bad 
feeling in any of you.’ ‘In peace’ at the conclusion of his 
intercourse with them will be a fitting result of ‘without fear’ 
at the beginning of it. The last clause shows why they ought 


* Lightfoot, Bzblical Essays, p. 276; Zahn, Jutrod. to N.7., i. p. 344- 


392 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XVI. 11, 12 


to set Timothy forward on his journey with peace and good 
will; he will be on his way to the Apostle, who is expecting 
him. 

peta Tav ddeXpav. Erastus is the only one mentioned in 
Acts xix. 22; but there may have been others, or St Paui 
may have expected others. The words need not mean more 
than that Timothy is not likely to come alone. This, however, 
is sO unimportant a meaning that some prefer taking pera 7. 45. 
with éxdéxonar: ‘I am expecting him and so are the brethren.’ 
This is an awkward construction, but it has more point. ‘The 
brethren’ in this case will be the same as ‘the brethren’ in 
@. 12, viz. those who brought the letter from Corinth and are 
waiting to take back the Apostle’s reply. The meaning would 
then be, ‘Send him back to me in peace, and then the brethren 
who are waiting for him will be able to start with my answer 
to you.’ 


12. Mepi Se "AroAXd. This looks as if the Corinthians had 
asked that Apollos should visit them again (v. 1, vil. 1, 25, 
Vill. 1, xil. 1). At any rate St Paul knew that they would be 
glad to have Apollos among them once more, and he is 
anxious to assure them that he is quite willing that Apollos 
should come. He is not jealous of the able and attractive 
Alexandrian, and is not at all afraid that he may join the 
Apollos party (i. 12, iii, 4-6, iv. 6; Tit. ii, 13). He has 
urged him strongly to go with the brethren who are to take 
1 Cor. to Corinth, and it is not his fault that Apollos does 
not do so. 

kal mdvtws obx Av OeAnpa tva EAOy «7.4. ‘And, in spite of 
all I could say, he had no wish to come zow; but he will 
come whenever the right time arrives.’ The zapéxa\eoa airov 
shows whose ‘will’ is meant; ‘I exhorted and entreated him, 
and there was absolutely no wish to come at present.’ Chry- 
sostom assumes that it is the will of Apollos that is the impedi- 
ment, and points out how St Paul excuses himself without 
blaming Apollos. To suppose that the will of God is meant 
(Theoph., Beng., Evans) is at variance with the context. When 
St Paul means the will of God, which is very frequently, he 
says so (i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 1, vill. 5, etc.).* In the N.T., zavrus 

* But see Lightfoot, On Revision, p. 118, who quotes Ign. Zphes. 20, 
Rom. 1, Smyr. 1; where, however, the context shows that the Divine will is 
meant, and where some texts have rot Geov expressed. 

It is quite clear that St Paul did not regard Apollos as the leader of the 
Apollos party, any more than he regarded Peter as leader of the Cephas 
party, or himself as leader of the Paul party. But it is possible that Apollos 
had some reason, which the Apostle does not care to mention, for not 
wishing to return to Corinth then, Origen speaks of him as being émloKozos 
at Corinth. 


XVI. 12,13] PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 303 


is found only in Paul and Luke (ix. 10; Luke iv. 23; Acts 
XxViil. 4): it expresses strong affirmation, wéiguve (Vulg.). The 
vov softens the refusal: Apollos has not made up his mind 
never to visit Corinth again, but he cannot be induced to 
come now. Although St Paul was not afraid that Apollos 
would join the Apollos party, Apollos may have been afraid 
that this party would try to capture him. If this is correct, 
Otay evKaipyon may have special meaning. Just as ov éay 
Topevwpat (7. 6) suggests, ‘It depends upon you whether I go 
to Jerusalem or not,’ so this might suggest, ‘It depends upon 
you whether he comes soon or not.’ The proper katpds rests 
with the Corinthians; Apollos will not come while there is an 
Apollos party in opposition to the Apostle. The #v implies 
that Apollos is not with St Paul at the time of writing: ‘when 
I spoke to him, there was no wish at all to come now.’ But 
evxaipnoy (Mark vi. 31; Acts xvii. 21; not in LXX) need not 
imply more than that Apollos was at present not free to come; 
for which meaning «d oyoAjs Exew would be better Greek. 
On the work of Apollos at Corinth see Knowling on Acts 
XVI. 24, 25. 
Before mo\\a wapexdd\eca, N* D* EF G, Latt. Goth. insert dyAG dpiv 
bri, vobes notum facto gquoniam: ABCKLMP, Syrr. Copt. Aeth. Arm, 
omit. 


_ For wo\dd, adverbial, comp. v. 19; Rom. xvi. 6, 123; it is frequent in 
Mark (v. 10, 23, 38, 43, etc.). 


13, 14. There is probably no thought of Apollos in this abrupt 
transition, such as, ‘Do not put your trust in any teacher, how- 
ever competent ; you must look to your own conduct.’ St Paul 
means to bring the letter to a close and begins his final exhorta- 
tions. In five clear and crisp charges he gathers together the 
duties which he has been inculcating, the duties of a Christian 
soldier. Four of these have reference to spiritual foes and perils, 
while the last sums up their duty to one another. They are an 
army in the field, and they must be alert, steadfast, courageous, 
strong ; and in all things united. ‘The four imperatives are 
directed respectively against the heedlessness, fickleness, child- 
ishness, and moral enervation of the Corinthians” (Findlay). 
Comp. vii. 29-31, X. 12, 13, XV. I, XIV. 20, 1x. 24, Xiii. 


13. [pnyopette. This charge seems to have been often given 
by our Lord, especially at the close of His ministry ; Mark xiii. 
34, 35, 37) XIV. 34, 37, 38, and parallels; and pdkapios 6 
yenyopov is one of the seven Beatitudes in Revelation (xvi. 15 ; 
comp. ili. 2, 3; Matt. xxiv. 42). For its use as a military charge 
see 1 Macc. xii. 27 of Jonathan the high priest to his men, and 
for its metaphorical use, as here, ypyydpe, dxotuynrov rvedpa KexTy- 


3904 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XVI. 13-18 


pevos (Ign. Polyc. 1): comp. 1 Thess. v. 6, 10 ; Col. iv. 2; 1 Pet. 
v. 8. The verb is a late formation from éypyyopa, and is found 
in the later books of the LXX, in the Psalms of Solomon, and in 
the Testaments of the xu. Patriarchs. Watchfulness against 
various enemies and dangers and watchfulness for the coming of 
Christ are specially meant here. 

omjkete ev TH tmiorer. The warning in x. 12 unites this 
charge with the preceding one: comp. Rom. v. 2, xi. 20; Eph. 
iv. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 15. ‘The faith’ means belief in the Gospel 
as a whole, and especially in the atonement won by Christ’s 
death on the Cross (i.) and in the life guaranteed by His 
Resurrection (xv.). There must be no desertion, no Aeuroraéia, 
with regard to that. These first two charges have reference to 
the Christian warrior awaiting attack ; the next two refer to the 
actual combat. 

dvSpifecbe. ‘Play the man,’ ‘act like men,’ viriliter agite 
(Vulg.). The verb occurs here only in N.T., but is common in 
LXX in exhortations ; Deut. xxxi. 6, 7, 23; Josh. i. 6, 7, 9, 18, 
etc. In 2 Sam. x. 12 and Ps. xxvii. 14, xxxi. 25, it is combined 
with xpatatotcfa, as here. Comp. the dying charge of 
Mattathias to his sons; ‘And ye, my children, be strong, and 
show yourselves men in behalf of the law’ (1 Macc. i. 64). 
Arist. £th Nic. 111. vi. 12 and other illustrations in Wetstein. 

kpatatodc0e. ‘Be not only manly but mighty; gain the 
mastery’ (Eph. iii. 16): xparauds (1 Pet. v. 6) and xpdros (Eph. i. 
19, vi. 10; Col. i. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 16) are uniformly used of God. 


14. mdvta Spay ev dydayn yweobw. He is glancing back at 
the party-divisions, at the selfish disorder at the Lord’s Supper, 
and at their jealousy in the possession of special charismata, 
and is recalling xii. Chrysostom has pera dydzns for év dyarn, 
probably through inadvertence ; there seems to be no such 
reading. The change is for the worse.* St Paul says more 
than that everything they do must be accompanied with love: 
love must be very atmosphere in which their lives move. ‘This 
love is the affection which all Christians are bound to cherish for 
one another and all mankind. The phrase év dydzy is specially 
frequent in Ephesians (i. 4, ili, 18, iv. 2, 15, 16, v. 2) and 
always in this sense rather than in that of our love to God or of 
His to us. 


15-18. He remembers some other directions which must 
be given before he concludes: comp. Rom. xvi. 17. He has 
spoken of his own fellow-workers, Timothy and Apollos, who are 
to visit them. He now says a word in commendation of some 


* The AV. has the same weak rendering ; ‘with charity,’ following 
Beza’s cum charitate. 


XVI. 15,16] PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 395 


among themselves whose services to the Church ought to 
command esteem and deference as well as love. Perhaps he had 
heard that those whom he mentions had been treated with 
disrespect. Dobschiitz, Probleme, pp. 66, 69. 


15. NMapakad@ S€ Gpas, adeApoit. ‘Now I beseech you, my 
brothers, —and then he breaks off in order to mention something 
which will induce them to grant his request. Dionysius the 
Areopagite, Damaris, and possibly others (Acts xvii. 33) had 
been won over before Stephanas, but his was the first Christian 
household, and as such was the foundation of the Church in 
those parts. It began with ‘the Church in his house.’ In a 
similar sense Epaenetus was drapyxi THs “Aoias (Rom. xvi. 5). 
It was no doubt on account of this important fact that St Paul 
made an exception in his usual practice and baptized Stephanas 
and his household (i. 16). What follows shows their devotion to 
the cause. Clement of Rome (Cor. 42), speaking of the Apostles, 
says: ‘So preaching everywhere in country and town, they 
appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the 
Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe ” ; 
where ras azapxas aitév seems to mean the firstfruits of the 
country districts and towns, x#pas x. woAes. But here it is 
evident that the Apostle had not appointed Stephanas and his 
household to any édaxovia. ‘They had spontaneously taken this 
service upon themselves. Just as the brethren appointed (€ragav) 
that Paul and Barnabas and others should go to Jesusalem about 
the question of circumcision (Acts xv. 2), so Stephanas and his 
household appointed ¢hemselves (€ragav éavtovs) to the service of 
their fellow-Christians. It was a self-imposed duty.* ‘The 
saints’ does not mean the poor at Jerusalem, but believers 
generally,—the sick and needy, travellers, etc. In class. Grk. 
Taocewv €avTov is common. 


16. iva Kal Gpets Smotdaonobe Tois Torovtos. ‘That ye 
also be in subjection to such men as these’—to such excellent 
Christians, The AV. ignores the xai, which has special point ; 
‘that you also do your duty to them as they do to all.’ And 
perhaps iroraoaecGar is chosen with special reference to éragéav 
éavtovs. ‘They have taken the lead in good works ; do you also 
follow such leadership.’ 

kal TavTl T ouvepyodvTe kat Koma@vt.. ‘And to every 


* The AV. is not an improvement on earlier versions, with ‘They have 
addicted themselves.’ The Genevan is better, with ‘ They have given them- 
selves’; and Tyndale still better, with ‘They have appoynted them selves.’ 
For the kind of écaxovla see Rom. xv. 25, 31 3 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1; Heb. vi. 
10; also Hort, Chrzstian Ecclesia, pp. 206 f. 


396 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS { XVI. 16-18 


fellow-labourer and hard worker.’* The ovv in cuvepyotvre is 
indefinite and comprehensive; neither ‘with us’ (AV.) in 
particular, nor ‘with them,’ but omz co-operanti (Vulg.), omnibus 
operam suam conferentibus (Beza); every one who lends a 
helping hand and works hard (Rom. xvi. 6, 12). 


17. xaipw S€ él rH mapoucia . x.7.A. ‘And it is a joy to 
me to have Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus here.’ 
They had probably brought the Corinthian letter and were 
waiting to take this letter in reply to it. ‘They were a little bit of 
Corinth, and as such a delight to the Apostle. That Fortunatus 
and Achaicus were members of the oixia Srefava is unlikely ; 
they would have been mentioned in a different way, if they had 
been ; and it is improbable that all the delegates would be taken 
from one household. Lightfoot thinks that there is no improba- 
bility in identifying Fortunatus with the Fortunatus mentioned 
by Clem. Rom. (Cor. 65): but the identification is precarious, 
for that Fortunatus may have beena Roman, and the name is 
not at all rare.t It is possible that the use of rapovoia implies 
that the visit of the delegates was official; see on xv. 23. 

TO Gpétepov dotépypa. Does this mean ‘my want of you,’ 
or ‘your want of me’? Both are possible, and each makes 
good sense. ‘I am deprived of you; but they compensate for 
your absence’; which is a pleasing way of expressing his affection 
for the Corinthians and his joy at having some of them with him. 
On the other hand; ‘ You cannot all of you come to me; but 
these excellent delegates will do quite as well.’ The latter is 
perhaps a little more probable. In the other case, would he 
have said dverAjpwoay? that these three men quite made up for 
their absence (Phil. ii. 30)? But, as regards answering the 
Corinthians’ questions, these delegates were an adequate 
substitute for the whole community; there was no need for the 
whole community to interview the Apostle. 


NSAKL, Chrys. have tudv 7d borépnua: BCDEFGMP read 76 
tyérepov barépnua, which is more likely to be right. For otra 
(SBC KLP, Copt. Arm. Aeth. Goth.), A DEFGM, Vulg. Syrr. read 
avrol, which Lachmann and Alford uncritically prefer. 


18. dvémavoay yap Td épov mvedua Kat Td Sudv. ‘For they 
refreshed (2 Cor. vii. 13; Philem. 7, 20) my spirit—and yours’ ; 
explaining how these three men were sufficiently representative 


* In xomiav we perhaps have one of St Paul’s athletic metaphors. It 
seems to refer to laborious training for a contest ; Phil. ii. 16; Col. i. 29; 
1 Tim. iv. 10; [Clem. Rom.] ii. 7, of moda Koridoavres Kal KaNOs dywricd- 
pevot, where see Lightfoot; also on Ign. Polyc. 6, cuyKomuire addpots, 
ouvab\eire cuvTpexere. 

+ The names of Corinthian Christians that are known to us are mostly of 
Roman or servile origin: see on i. 14; also Hastings, YB, Art. ‘ Achaicus.’ 


XVI.18,19] PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 397 


of the Corinthian Church. It was a great comfort to him to 
learn from their delegates how anxious they were for his direction 
and advice, and to have their assurance about matters which had 
greatly disturbed him respecting his ‘ brothers’in Corinth. And 
it is in the highest element of his being (zvedua, not yyy) that 
he has this consolation. He adds xai 70 tyuev with affectionate 
afterthought: they are sure to feel the same. This may look 
backward to the relief with which the perplexed Corinthians sent 
representatives to consult the Apostle, or forward to the time of 
the representatives’ return, when the Corinthians would be 
tranquillized by their report and this letter. The latter is better ; 
it will be a great consolation to the Corinthians to learn what a 
comfort their delegates have been to St Paul. 

emytvdoxeTte ov TOUS ToLoUTOUS. ‘ Acknowledge therefore such 
men as these’: cognoscite ergo quit hujusmodi sunt (Vulg.); 
agnoscite tgitur gui sunt hujusmodt (Beza). ‘Such services as 
theirs ought to meet with a generous recognition. They have 
undertaken a long and perilous journey on your behalf, and they 
have brought great relief and refreshment to me as well as to you.’ 
In 1 Thess. v. 12, St Paul uses eidévac for ‘know’ in the sense of 
‘appreciate.’ It would seem from these exhortations (15-18) 
that the Corinthians were wanting in respect for those whose 
work or position gave them a claim to reverence and submission. 
Clement of Rome finds similar fault in them. 


19-24. Solemn conclusion to the Epistle with Salutations, 
Warning, and Benediction. The collective salutations are in 
three groups. First, those of all the Churches in the proconsular 
province of Asia, with which St Paul was constantly in touch. 
Then, from Ephesus in particular, a specially affectionate one 
from Prisca and Aquila and their household ; and finally, a more 
general one from all the Christians in Ephesus. To these, with 
his own hand, St Paul adds his own personal salutation, with a 
farewell warning and blessing. * 

19. Elsewhere the Apostle mentions ‘ Asia’ thrice (2 Cor. 
i.8; Rom. xvi. 5; 2 Tim. i. 15), and in all places it is the Roman 
province that is meant ; but the Roman province was not always 
accurately defined and was used in more than one sense. Here 
the district of which Ephesus was the capital is probably intended. 
See Artt. ‘Asia’ in D&#. and Luc. Bibl. ; Knowling on Acts ii. 9 ; 
Hort on 1 Peter i. 2, pp. 157f.; Harnack, Acts of the Apostles, 
pp. 102 f.; Swete on Rev. 1. 4. 

dondteta Spas év Kupiw moda “AkdAas Kal Mpioxa. Both év 

* In the papyri, dordfecOa is frequently used in salutations at the close 


of letters; e.g. domafov Emayadv cal trols didoivtas judas mpds adnOlav. 
See Milligan on 1 Thess. v. 26; Deissmann, Bzb/e Studies, p. 257. 


398 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XVI. 19, 20 


Kvpiw and zoAAa add to the impressiveness of the salutation: it 
is sent in a devout spirit of fellowship in Christ, and in affec- 
tionate earnestness. "Ev Kupiw, of the sphere or element in 
which anything exists or takes place, is frequent in all groups 
of the Pauline Epistles, except the Pastorals, and is specially 
frequent in the salutations in Rom. xvi. (2, 8, 11, 12, 13). It 
sometimes means ‘in God’ (i. 31; 2 Cor. x. 17), but generally 
means ‘in Christ,’ to which, however, it is not always equivalent ; 
see J. A. Robinson on Eph. ii. 21, p. 72. For the adv. woAAa 
see on v. 12; also Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. 91. 

Prisca would hardly be mentioned as well as her husband, if 
she were not a prominent Christian; and this prominence is 
still more marked in Rom. xvi. 3 and 2 Tim. iv. 19. “ Plainly 
the woman was the leading figure of the two, so far as regards 
Christian activity at least. She was a fellow-labourer of St Paul, 
i.e. a missionary, and she could not take part in missionary work 
or in teaching, unless she had been inspired and set apart by the 
Spirit. Otherwise, St Paul would not have recognized her. She 
may be claimed as 7 dzdcroAos, although St Paul has not given 
her this title” (Harnack, Zhe Mission and Expansion of Christi- 
anity, ii. p. 66). Harnack thinks it probable that either Prisca 
or Aquila wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews (/é7d. i. p. 793 
Zeitschrift fiir die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1900, i. pp. 16f.). In 
Acts xviii. 18, 26 the wife is placed first; in Acts xviii. 2, the 
husband, as here. In Acts she is always called by the diminutive 
form of the name, Priscilla, which St Paul, according to the 
best texts, never uses. They were evidently great travellers, 
according to the nomadic habits of many of the Jews (Sanday 
and Headlam on Rom. xvi. 3; Deissmann, Zigh?, pp. 11g, 170, 
278; Renan, S. Paul, pp. 96, 97; Lightfoot, Biblical Essay, 
Pp. 299)- 

abv TH KaT otKkov adrav éxxAnoia. At Rome, as at Ephesus, 
the house of this devoted pair was a centre of Christian activity 
(Rom. xvi. 3), and was probably used for common worship (Col. 
iv. 15; Philem. 2). Hort, Zhe Christian Ecclesia, pp. 117, 118 
122. We need increased information about this primitive 
arrangement. 

A 34 omit this verse, doubtless through homoeoteleuton. After al 
éxxAnolac. CP 47, Chrys. insert maéom. For dordteras (NCDEKP, 
Goth.) BF GLM, Vulg. have domdfovra:, an obvious correction. For 


IIpioxa (8 BM P 17, Copt. Arm. Goth.) AC DEFGKL, Syrr. Aeth. 
have IIpioxiAXa, which AV., Lachm. and Alford adopt. 


20. domdfovtar Spas ot ddeApot mdvtes. ‘All the brethren 
salute you,’ with some emphasis on ‘all’ as in xv. 7. He means 
all the members of the Church in Ephesus. The Corinthians 
are not to think that only Aquila and Priscilla with their circle 


XVI. 20,21] PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 399 


take an interest in them. St Paul can answer for every Christian 
at Ephesus. ‘One feels, in reading such salutations, that the 
history of nations is coming to an end, and that of a new nation 
of a wholly different kind is beginning” (Godet). Comp. 2 Cor. 
Xili. 13. 

domdcacbe addAnAous ev giiypate dyiw. ‘The affection 
which the Christians in Ephesus and Asia manifest towards 
you must kindle in all of you affection for one another, which 
should be expressed by a hallowed use of the common mark of 
affection.’ Like v. 14, this is an exhortation to get rid of their 
unhappy divisions and jealousies. The solemn kiss was a token 
of the love for one another which all Christians ought to regard 
as a debt (Rom. xii. 8). This PiAnpa dyov (1 Thess. v. 26; 
Rom. xvi. 16), or @ywov PiAnpa (2 Cor. xii. 12), or Pidnpa 
ayarns (1 Pet. v. 14), very soon became part of the ritual of 
public worship. Justin (Afol/. i. 65) calls it simply PiAnpa. 
Tertullian (De Orat. 14) calls it osculum pacis, and also signac- 
ulum orationts (18), and asks whether any prayer can be complete 
cum divortio sancti osculi, Water he calls it pax, and in the 
Church Order known as Zhe Testament of the Lord (i. 23, 3°} 
li. 4, 9) it is simply ‘the Peace.’ But in the East the more 
common term was doracpos. Conybeare (Zxfositor, 1894, 
i. 461) shows that the ‘kiss of peace’ may have been customary 
among the Jews. If so, it is unlikely that the kiss was ever pro- 
miscuous in Christian worship, for in the synagogue men would 
kiss men and women women ; and this was certainly the custom 
at a later date in the Church (Const. Apost. ii. 57, vill. 115 
Canons of Laodicea, 19: comp. Athenagoras Legat. 32; Clem. 
Alex. Paed. iii. 11, p. 301 ed. Potter). See Suicer, doracpos 
and diAnpa; D. Chr. Ant. p. 902; Kraus, Real-Ency. d. Chr. 
Alt. i. p. 543. It is said that in some parts of Greece a kiss 
is still given with the Paschal Salutation, “Christ is risen.” 
Chrysostom (on 2 Cor. xiii. 13) compares the later custom of 
kissing the entrances of Churches; ‘‘We are the temple of 
Christ. We kiss the porch and entrance of the temple in 
kissing one another”; and he contrasts the kiss of Judas, which 
was not dyov. From England the custom spread in the 
thirteenth century of passing round a tablet (pax, imstrumentum 
pacis, tabella pacts, asser ad pacem, oculatorium) to be kissed as 
a substitute for the kiss of peace. The passing of this through 
the congregation led to so much confusion that at last it was 
confined to the clergy (Kraus, ii. p. 602). 


21. ‘O domacpds TH epi yetpt Mavdov. ‘The salutation 
with my own hand of me Paul.’ The Apostle takes the pen 
from his amanuensis and himself finishes the letter, to authenti- 


400 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [XVI 21 


cate it as coming from him: it must not be possible for his 
opponents in Corinth to question whether this letter is really 
St Paul’s: 2 Thess. ili. 17; Col. iv. 18. Up to this point he 
had been dictating (Rom. xvi. 22), but he finishes the letter 
himself. In the papyri, the signature is sometimes in quite 
a different hand from the rest of the writing (Milligan, Z%essa- 
lonians, p. 125). The Apostle’s handwriting would be known 
at Corinth; but we cannot safely infer from Gal. vi. 11 that 
it was unusually large: like other people, he sometimes wrote 
large, as we use large type, for emphasis (Ramsay, Ga/atians, 
p. 466; Deissmann, Ligh, pp: 153» 158). IlavAov is in apposi- 
tion with the gen. implied i in é47.* 

ei Tis 08 didet Tov K., nTw dvddena. We might have expected 
dyara, but the previous dtAxjpare may have suggested the lower 
word. Or St Paul may have purposely chosen it, to indicate 
the poor character of the love indicated; ‘If anyone does 
not have even as much affection as guAev’; and those who 
were uncharitable to one another could not have this. For the 
difference between the two verbs see Trench, Syz. § 12 ; Cremer, 
pp. 9f.; comm. on John xxi. 15-17; Swete on Rey. ili. 19. 
Nowhere else, excepting the somewhat similar Tit. iii. 15, does 
St Paul use ¢uAety, which is rare in the N.T. outside the Gospels. 
The negative almost forms one word with ¢uA«, ‘if anyone has no 
affection for Christ,’ is heartless towards Him. Asa matter of 
fact, this was the case with some: comp. vii. 9, xi. 6. For 7, 
a later form of éorw, see Jas. v. 12; also nrw 7 d0fa Kvpiov eis 
tov aidva, Ps. civ. 31; "lepovoadAnp yrw ayia, t Macc. x. 31. It 
may have been common in adjurations and curses. J. B. Mayor 
quotes two inscriptions; «i d€ Tis Kaxoupyjoe, nrw evoxos “HAiw 
LeAjvy, and karynpapévos nrw abros kai Ta Téxva adtov (St James, 
p- 155). Gal. i. 8, 9, we have dvafena éorw: see on xii. 3. See 
Enc. Bibl. ii. 1432. 

Mapay dd. Perhaps the most curious mistake in the 
English Versions is that which attaches these words, combined 
into one, to the preceding ‘ Anathema,’ as if they formed part 
of a formula of malediction, ‘be Anathema Maranatha.’ Cover- 
dale has ‘be Anathema Maharan Matha,’ which has perhaps 
been influenced by Shammatha, the highest form of Jewish 
excommunication, like Luther's ‘Maharam Motha.’ The 
Genevan /rans/ates the words; ‘let him be had in execration, 
yea excommunicate to death.’ But the error is far older than 
any English Version, and perhaps may be traced back to the 


*In none of the Epistles which have come down to us does he call 
himself Saul. Possibly, if he had to write to Jews, he would do so (ix. 20), 
See Deissmann, Azb/e Studies, pp. 316f.; Ramsay, S¢ Paul, pp. 81f. ; 
Schiller-Szinessy, Z.xfosttor, 3rd series, iv. p. 324. See also on xv. 9. 


XVI. 21, 23] PRACTICAL AND PERSONAL 401 


fifth century. Down to the seventeenth century it was accepted 
as correct by many scholars ; and although abandoned by scholars 
now, it survives here and there in popular literature, and in the 
Second Lesson one may still sometimes hear ‘Anathema Mar- 
anatha’ read as one expression. Scholars, however, are not 
agreed as to the exact meaning of Maranatha; as to whether it 
means ‘The Lord has come,’ or ‘Our Lord has come,’ * or ‘ Our 
Lord cometh,’ or ‘Our Lord, come.’ The last would resemble 
‘Amen; come Lord Jesus’ (Rev. xxii. 20). Yet another inter- 
pretation is, ‘Our Lord is the sign’ (Abbott, Zhe Son of Man, 
p. 465; Lucy. Bibl. iil. 2935, from Klostermann, Probleme im 
Afosteltexte, pp. 220-246), but it is not likely to be right. With 
‘Our Lord cometh’ compare Phil. iv. 5; Jas. v. 8; Rev. i. 7, 
iil. 11; and this agrees with the context and the substance of the 
Epistle. If it be right, the saying, though in no way a maledic- 
tion, is monitory in tone. It warns them that at any moment 
they may have to answer for their shortcomings. Why St Paul 
gives this warning in Aramaic rather than in Greek, is unknown. 
The most probable conjecture is that in this language it had 
become a sort of motto or password among Christians, and 
familiar in that shape, like ‘Alleluia’ with ourselves. See 
Hastings, DZ. iii. pp. 241 f.; Findlay ad /oc.; Dalman, Words, 
p. 328. Zahn thinks that the Apostle uses ‘the language of the 
Palestinian Jews” because ‘‘the persons whom he has in mind 
are Christians who had come from Palestine” (Zutrod. to V.T., 
i, p. 288). 

&* A BC*M 17 have rov Képiov, without addition; DEFGKLP, 


Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Goth., Chrys. add judv "Incoty Xpiorév, asin AV. FG 
have papavvaéa, which g renders 2 adventu dominz. 


23. 7 xdpis Tod Kupiou “Incod pel Spay. The Apostle will 
not end with a word of warning or severity, but adds the 
usual benediction. Like a true teacher, as Chrysostom says, he 
helps not only with counsels, but with prayers. 


The shortest of the Pauline benedictions is that in Col. iv. 18; 1 Tim. 
vi. 21, 7 xdpts weO Yudv. This one is shorter than usual. Sometimes quar 
is inserted after Kupiov (Rom. xvi. 20, 243; Gal. vi. 18; 1 Thess. v. 28; 
2 Thess. iii. 18), and ALP Vulg. add it here. Sometimes Xpicrod is 
inserted after "Inood (Rom. xvi. 24; 2 Cor. xiii. 13; Gal. vi. 18; Phil. 
iv. 23; 1 Thess. v. 28; 2 Thess. iii. 18; Philem. 25), and ACDEFG 


* Chrysostom renders it, ‘O Kvpios nuav #AOe, and interprets it of the 
Incarnation: ‘‘as if the Apostle said, The common Lord and Ruler of all 
condescended to come down so low, and you remain unchanged and persist 
in sinning.” The thought of the Incarnation incites to virtue and extinguishes 
the desire to sin. The Dzdache has the expression in the invitation to the 
Holy Communion ; ei tis dyids éotiv, epyérOw' el tis ok éort, peravoelrw* 
papavadd, "Auyv (x. 6). See Schaff’s note, p. 198; also Field, Otium 
Norvic. iii. p. 110; Deissmann, Light, pp. 305, 354- 


26 


402 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ XVI. 23, 24 


K LMP, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. add it here, while &* B 17, Am. Goth, 
omit. Sometimes rdvrwy (2 Cor. xiii. 13 ; 2 Thess. iii. 18), sometimes rod 
mvevparos (Gal vi. 18; Phil. iv. 23; Philem. 25), is inserted before dyav. 
The fullest form of all is 2 Cor. xiii. 13. In spite of the strong evidence 
for Xpicrod here, it is not to be accepted; the probability of insertion, 
either deliberately or mechanically, is great. The evidence against Xpuordv 
inv. 22 is stronger, and if that is not genuine, Xpwr7o is not likely to be 
genuine here. 


24. To make his farewell words still more tender, he adds 
to the Apostolic Benediction a message of personal affection. 
The verb to be supplied is probably the same in both cases, 
ein, ‘be,’ as in AV. and RV.; ej must be understood in v. 23, 
and is more probable than éori in v. 24. He sends his love in 
the form of a blessing, to help them to correct what he has 
blamed, and to prove to them that, as regards his attitude towards 
them, 4 dydarn ovdérore mixta. It embraces all of them, even 
the most faulty, for it is €v Xpiot@ *Ingod, the ‘ bond of perfectness’ 
and the ‘bond of peace.’* He would not have said tavtwy, if 
éoti were understood, for some offenders were too flagrant to 
be at present included; but as a wish, an aspiration and a 
prayer, his message may embrace all. And, being ‘in Christ 
Jesus,’ it has nothing of the partiality or fickleness of human 
affection. It is, as Chrysostom says, mvevpatiucy tis* 610 Kai 


opddpa yvycia. 


The final dujv (RN ACDKLP, Versions) is, as usual, a liturgical 
addition: BFM 17 and some Latt. omit. The dunv at the end of 
Galatians, Romans, and Jude is genuine; that at the end of 2 Peter is 
possibly genuine. See Introduction, § ‘ Text.’ 

As already pointed out on wv. 5, the note in K L and some Latin texts, 
stating that the letter was written from Philippi, is based on a misappre- 
hension. P and some other texts say correctly that it was written ‘from 
Ephesus’ or ‘from Asia,’ while § B* C D* F 17 make no statement about 
the place of writing. 


* See Deissmann, Die neutestamentliche Formel ‘‘in Christo Jesu” ; also 


Sanday and Headlam on Rom. vi. II, pp. 160, 161, 


TNDEXES 


a 


INDEX I. GENERAL. 


Abbott, E. A., 7, 37, 40, 54, 92, 
LOO, 106; 4103, s11S;, 120) \201, 
BIAS 2315 242) 24354250; 4270; 
290, 308, 320, 335, 352, 369, 
373, 375» 401. 

Abbott, T. K., 74, 89, 245, 246. 

Accentuation, Questions of, 64, 108, 
Kot. 205: 

Accusative, Proleptic, 7. 

Achaia, 3, I5. 

Achaicus, 396. 

Acts of Paul and Thecla, 155. 

Adam, 352, 353, 357) 373, 374s 378. 

Adam, Second, 357, 373, 374- 

Advent, Second, 7, 63, 155, 250, 
300, 354, 374- 

believed to be near, 155, 376, 377. 

Aeschines, 76. 

Aeschylus, 89, 347. 

Affectionate address, 9, 25, 29, 229, 
315, 361. 

Ages, The ends of the, 207. 

Agnosticism, 364. 

Agriculture, Figurative use of, 57, 


59, 185. 
Alcibiades, 87, 276, 319. 
Alexander, 170. 
Alford, 114, 125, 127, 145, 148, 161, 
242, 307, 375, 396, 398. 
Allegorical interpretation, 184. 
Allen, W. C., 141, 334. 
Alliteration, 67, 73, 370. 
Amanuensis, 2, 15, 285, 399. 
Ambiguous sentences, 143, 144, 147, 
152, 165. 
Ambrose, 179, 180, 218, 233. 
Ambrosiaster, 130, 159, 325. 
‘ Amen’ in worship, 313. 
Amen, Final, 402. 
Anacoluthon, 40. 


493 


Anathema, 261, 400, 

Andocides, 96. 

Andrews, S., 337. 

Andronicus, 279. 

Angels, 85, 112, 206, 233, 371. 

Annihilation of the wicked, 18, 356. 

Aorist tense, 5, 30, 43, 45, 57, 84, 9I, 
119, 139, 153, 157, 274, 276, 
334, 337, 356, 364, 377, 386. 

epistolary, 90, 104, 106, 188. 

Aphrodite, Worship of, 128. 

Apion, 289. 

Apocalypse of Elijah, 42. 

Apollinaris, 49. 

Apollos, 2, 11, 12, 16, 56, 81, 392. 

Aposiopesis, 188. 

Apostle, Rights of an, 177-188. 

Apostle, Title of, 279. 

Apostles, The, 85, 181, 336, 338, 


395. 
Apostolic authority, 92, 98, 104, 141, 
145, 327, 383, 387. 
Apostolic Constitutions, 40, 112, 249, 
399. 
Apostolic Decree, The, 174. 
Aguila and Priscilla, 398. 
Aquila, Version of, 87, 317, 378. 
Aquinas, 246. 
Arian text, Favourite, 229. 
Aristophanes, 89, 163, 204, 230, 236. 
Aristotle, 10, 13, 19, 33, 49, 50, 54, 
60, 87, III, 119, 134, 164, 182, 
_ 285, 312, 379, 394. - 
Article, The definite, 78, 133, 153, 
181, 191, 231, 352, 359, 362. 
absence of the, 33, 45, 46, 193, 
310, 319, 323, 347, 356. 
Ascension of Isaiah, 42. 
Asceticism, 131, 133, 135, 161. 
Asia, 397. 


404 


Assimilation, §1, 172, 207, 208, 214, 
264, 268, 297, 388 

Assumption of Moses, 152. 

Asyndeton, 62, 103, 127, 255. 

Athenagoras, 399. 

Athens, Indian’s tomb at, 292. 

Sacrifices at, 88, 166. 

Atonement, The, 247, 249, 333, 394; 
see ‘ Soteriology.’ 

Atto of Vercelli, 13, 23, 44, 65, 76, 
82, 83, 86, 87, 90, 104, 134, 
154, 164, 165, 167, 172, 197, 
228, 235, 276, 305, 328, 335, 
342, 361. 

Attraction, Grammatical, 129, 347. 

Augustine, 40, 57, 59, 64, 65, 83, 
85, 97, I10, 114, 125, 135, 180, 
207, 214, 218, 240, 246, 272, 
292, 342, 382. 

Aurelius, Marcus, 75, 116, 167, 269, 
273, 274, 293, 294, 307, 362. 
Authorised Version, Inaccuracies of 
the, 17, 65, 103, 124, 125, 168, 
181, 193, 199, 212, 225, 264, 
326, 352, 371, 373, 385, 389, 
394, 395, 400. 

Axiomatic present tense, 18, 108. 


Babel, 306. 

Bachmann, P., 8, 13, 19, 33, 84, 
108, 148, 157, 171, 179, 209, 
245, 298. 

Bacon, B. W., 168. 

Bacon, Francis, 154, 157. 

Baljon, 126, 144, 2 

Bampton Lectures, kegnum Det, 92, 


375. 
Baptism, 15, 119, 141, 200, 202, 262, 


273. 
for the dead, 359, 360. 
of infants, 142. 
Baptismal formula, 
262. 
Barnabas, 182, 279, 294, 307, 395- 
Barnabas, Epistle of, 52, 66, 70, 88, 
126, 129, 184, 376. 
Barnes, W. E., 317. 


120, 130, 200, 


Baruch, Apocalypse of, 4, 64, 152, 
351, 368, 377. 

Baruch, Book of, 156, 216, 385. 

Basil the Great, 8, 88, 143, 209, 
228, 234, 268, 293. 

Beasts, 371. 

Beet, J. Agar, 67, 245, 256, 306, 


312, 350, 356, 376, 383. 
Bel and the Dragon, 85. 
Benediction, The Apostolic, 401. 


INDEXES 


Bengel, 1, 2, 7, 20, 23, 26, 40, 46, 
57, 58, 64, 73, 78, 86, 89, 95, 
TIO; “122, 124, WA ks; 147, 180, 
161, 171, 192, 193), 195; alOus 
200,203,207, e2L yaa eae 
239, 250, 259, 261, 266, 269, 
272, 278, 283, 298, 300, 313, 
318, 319, 327, 333, 336, 362, 
364, 383, 384 

Bentley, 46. 

Bernard of Clairvaux, 165. 

Bernard, J. H., 380. 

Beza, 20, 58, 65, 77, 78, 85, 97, 107; 
113, 118, 135, 144, 154, 186, 


214, 234, 276, 327, 348, 357, 
374, 385, 386, 397. 


Bigg, C., 195, 206. 

Bilingual MSS., Differences be- 
tween Greek and Latin in, 68, 
75, 159; 309. 

Bishop, W. C., 248. 

Blass, 82, 196, 230, 231, 246, 250, 


252, 300, 332, 385, 388. 
Blessing, Eucharistic, 211, 213, 243. 
Blood-shedding, Sacrificial, 212, 247. 
Bodies, Heavenly, 371. 

Body, Resurrection of the, 365-381. 
Sanctity of the, 129. 
Unity of the, 278. 
Boniface VIII., 50. 
Boxing, 196. 
Brethren, 9, 29, 361, 379, 392, 398. 
Brethren of the Lord, 181, 338. 
Briggs, C. A., 216, 356, 374, 376. 
Brother, 2, 106, 115, 143, 172, 173. 
Browne, E. Harold, 252. 
Buckland, W., 269. 
Building, Metaphor of, 59, 61, 67, 

164, 306, 311. 

Bull Unam Sanctam, 50. 
Burial, 372, 380. 

Burial of the Lord, 334. 
Burkitt, F. C., 335. 

Burn, A. E., 228. 

Burning, 291. 

Burton, E., 369. 

Burton, E. de W., 139, 142. 
Butler, Bishop, 50, 164, 297. 


Caesar, 86. 

Caesar’s, 73, 354. 

Cajetan, Cardinal, 245. 

Called by God, 2, 143, 145, 147. 

Calling, 2, 24, 145, 146, 147. 

Calvin, 10, 28, 93, 125, 134, 142, 
146, 154, 155, 171, 172, 178, 
190, 193, 198, 203, 204, 207, 


INDEXES 


209, 211, 
253, 
278, 290, 
300, 307; 
342, 
385. ; 
Cambridge Theological Essays, 
343: 
Cassian, 193, 210, 
Caste inadmissible among Christians, 


221% 
269, 
293, 
322, 
361, 


223, 
272, 
295; 
328, 
362, 


225, 
274; 
296, 
334, 
364, 


231, 
276, 
297, 
337) 
369, 


331; 


36. 
Celibacy, 132, 136, 153, 161. 
Celsus, 25. 
Chadwick, W. E., 1, 35, 49, 57, 755 
189, 263, 307. 


Change from mortal to immortal, 


377: 
Chapters, Bad division of, 225. 
Charity ; see ‘ Love.’ 
Charles, R. H., 152, 368, 377. 
@hase; Fo H:, 625 331, 343. 
Cheyne, T. K., 139. 
Chiasmus, 86, 249, 295, 297. 
Chloe, Io. 
Christ.) Dhe title: of} 31, 161,735 


D770 
‘Christ’ party at Corinth, 12, 
284 


Christology; 35 235.28; 31; 51, 73; 
229, 355-358. 

Chrysostom, 2, 12, 
103) 1075) 1US, 
186, 205, 208, 
EU 2525 02545 
278, 282, 280, 


18, 27, 84, 92, 
Lic, 130) 179; 
212, 231, 233, 
260, 266, 273, 
294, 296, 297, 
307, 324, 327, 328, 335, 336, 
337, 364, 375, 383, 384, 392, 


394, 399, 401, 402. 

Church, R. W., 164. 

Church Quarterly Review, 248. 

Church, The, 224, 277, 278. 

Churches, Local, 2, 91, 145, 235, 
324. 

Churches (buildings), 239, 313, 318. 

Cicero, 23, 96, 115, 197, 273, 293, 
365, 377; 380. 

Circumcision, 146, 147. 

Civil power, 110, 114. 

Clarke, Langton, 356. 

Classical quotations, 363. 

Clemen, 144. 

Clement of Alexandria, 19, 24, 84, 
116, 138, 193, 293, 399. 

Clement of Rome, 28, 41, 44, 78, 
107, 199, 262, 276, 291, 293, 
309, 395, 396, 397. 

Clementine Homilies, 179, 240. 


405 


Climax, 84, 


hips, ato), 


172, 173; 
295. 

Collection for the poor, 381-387. 

Communion, Holy ; see ‘ Eucharist.’ 

Compound verbs, 69, 102, 124, 133, 
I14I, 205, 252, 282, 296, 307, 
310, 383. 

Conder, 183. 

Confession, Private, 251. 

Conscience, 76, 169, 171, 173, 220- 
223. 

Consecration, Eucharistic, 135, 248, 
249. 

Constructions, Uncertain, 70, 98, 
We Ty Ot aye RWS iu 
220, 260, 360, 385, gol. 

Conversion, 144, 169, 332. 

Converts mostly poor, 25, 29, 242. 

mostly from heathenism, 258, 329, 
346. 

Conybeare, F. C., 399. 

Conybeare and Howson, 23, 32, 314, 
369. 

Corinthian wickedness, 31, 97, 106, 
131, 260. 

Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, 313. 

Covenant, 244, 247. 

Coverdale, 234, 313, 349, 400. 

Creed, Materials for a, 333. 

Cremer, 113, 158, 261, 263, 264, 

_ 289, 355, 400. 

Crispus, 2, 12, 14. 

Cross of Christ, 18, 22, 31, 40, 329. 

Crown, 194, 195. 

Cup, Eucharistic, 212, 213, 246-249. 

Cymbals, 289. 

Cyprian, 70, 161, 249, 291, 374, 378. 

Cyril of Alexandria, 82. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, 248, 249, 334, 


357- 


Dale, R. W., 263. 

Dalman, 118, 313, 353, 373, 375» 
401. 

Dances, 204. 

Dante, 235. 

Date of the Epistle, 102, 389. 

Dative case, 18, 154, 

Davies, Dv. O:, 77. 

Day of Judgment, 7, 63, 76, 78, 
100, 170, 208, 254. 

Death, 73, 253, 337, 353) 356, 358, 
361, 369, 378. 

Death of Christ, 18, 172, 249, 333; 
see ‘ Cross.’ 

Decius, The devotion of, 246. 

Defilement, 169, 215, 220. 


406 


Deissmann, 2, 5;6,) 12, TA, 22,27, 


28, 73, 84, 90, 102, 119, 128, 
140, 147, 148, 149, 156, 164, 
167, 171, 142, 158, 190; 217; 
220, 9222, 0224, 2Al, 274, 261, 
289, 308, 316, 354, 370, 377; 
383, 386, 388, 389, 397, 398, 
400, 401. 


Deliberative subjunctive, 93, 123. 

Deo volente, 389. 

Didache, 212, 214, 241, 266, 267, 
280, 313, 322, 383, 401. 

Dillmann, 377. 

Diodorus, 217, 264. 

Dionysius of Alexandria, 308. 

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 85. 

Disciplina arcant, 39. 

Discrepancies in Scripture, 204, 205. 

Dissensions at Corinth, 10-13, 69, 
71, 72, 131, 239, 257, 274, 282, 
324, 393, 394, 399. 

Divine indwelling, 46, 66, 128. 
Divinity of Christ, 28, 51, 743 see 
‘ Christology’ and ‘ Lord.’ 

Divorce, 140, 143. 

Dobschiitz, 140, 146, 161, 178, I91, 
249, 279; 333, 342, 395- 

Doéllinger, 267. 

Door, Metaphor of a, 390. 

Driver, 166, 183, 187, 201, 216, 353. 

Du Bose, 260. 

Duchesne, 118. 

Durell, J. V., 23. 


Faster, 103, 389. 

Ecclesiasticus, 59, 92, 96, 107, III, 
126, 147, 169, 197, 282, 375. 

Edersheim, 216. 

Edification, 164, 171. 

Edwards, T. C., 4, 39, 40, 44, 45, 
65; 745) 76, 125, 170, L7ioy 240, 

_ . 332, 383. 

Eichhorn, 22. 

Elijah, Apocalypse of, 42. 

Elizabeth, Queen, 158. 

Bllicott, 30, 46, 58, 90, Tr3, 
EOS 212.8 222) oO odes 
332, 337, 357, 375, 383. 

Emphasis, 27, 46, 58, 90, 108, 
I1Q, 122, 128,) 120, \i60, 
173, 194, 220, 221, 240, 
251, 264, 272, 277, 311, 
321, 325, 327, 356, 361, 
373, 388, 392. 

Encyclopaedia Biblica, 14, 240, 
280, 284, 397, 400, 4O1. 

End, The, 7, 207, 3545 355. 


139, 
245, 


117, 
169, 
246, 
315, 
369, 


266, 


INDEXES 


Enninus, 92. 

Enoch, Book of, 111, 112, 120, 353, 
371, 375. 

Epaenetus, 395. 

ae 361, 387, 389, 390, 397, 
399. 

Epictetus, 70, 108, 125, 128, 129, 

_ 147, 157, 158, 195, 223, 370. 

Epicureans, 22, 346, 363. 

Epiphanian theory, 182. 

Epiphanius, 42, 206. 

Epistles, Lost, 104, 105. 

Epistolary formulae, 90, 104, 106, 
188, 386, 389, 397. 

Erasmus, 315. 

Erastus, 25, 90, 390, 392. 

Eschatology, 38, 111, 155, 170, 208, 


354-358. 

Esdras, Second Book of, 78, 155, 
156. 

Esoteric doctrine, 38, 39. 

Estius, 45, 114, 192, 245. 

Eternal loss, 18, 65, 67. 

Ethical teaching of St Paul, 285. 

Eucharist, The, 135, 200, 202, 210- 
215, 217, 236-257, 313. 

Euripides, 202, 325, 363. 

Eusebius, 32, 36. 

Euthymius Zigabenus, 3. 

Evans, T. S., 13, 14, 30, 40, 45, 
57; hoy 02,95, LOls ie aetaae 
153, 163, 170, 185, 192, 194, 
212; 215, ‘2445 1.245, 625050200: 
332, 342, 351, 359, 377- 

Excommunication, 97, 100, 108, 

Expositor, 201, 234, 245, 379, 383, 
399; 400. 

Expository Times, 213, 242, 247. 


Factions ; see ‘ Dissensions.’ 
Faith, 21, 34, 266, 290, 342, 350, 


394- 

False wisdom, 20-34, 70, 84. 

Fasting, 135. 

Field, F., 116, 401. 

Fifth Gospel, The, 226, 286, 343. 

Fighting wild beasts, 361. 

Findlay, 40, 90, 112, 114, 128, 140, 
144, 157, 179, 207, 261, 360, 
385, 393, 401. 

Fire, Figurative use of, 63. 

Firstfruit, 351-354, 395. 

Flesh, 25, 52, 54, 99, 153, 154, 
215, 370. 

Flesh and blood, 375, 376. 

Fletcher, R. J., 140, 178, 243. 

Foolishness, 21-23. 70, 86. 


INDEXES 


Forbearance, The principle of, 174- 
197. 

Forensic terms, I10, 112, 179, 318. 

Fornication, 120-129, 173, 204. 

Fortunatus, 396. 

Freedom, Christian, 122, 123, 143, 
146, 149, 158, 173, 219, 224, 
230 


30. 
Freewill, 83, 374. 


Gaia Afrania, 325. 
Gaius, 14. 
Galatia, Churches of, 383, 384. 
Galen, 10. 
Gallio, 2. 
Games, 194-197, 396. 
Gardner, P., 247, 339. 
Genevan Version, 349, 385, 395, 400. 
Genitive, objective, 6, 30, 186, 264, 
348. 
possessive, 2, 73, 217, 354. 
qualifying, 33, 40, 78, 93. 
subjective, 33, 186, 264, 348. 
of opposition, 104. 
of relation, 217. 
Gibson, E. C. S., 252. 
Gieseler, 42. 
Gifford, E. H., 45. 
Gifts, Spiritual, 5, 46, 257-284, 301- 
328. 
Glory, 38, 40, 223, 231, 371. 
Glorying;) 263528) 971,72; 53, Tol, 
188, 291. 
Glosses, 14, 82, 142, 298. 
Glover, vl. R.5 25,233: 
Gnosticism, 36. 
Godet, 16, 85, 88, 92, 99, 103, 112, 
120, 222, 229, 282, 289, 399. 
Gore, C., 245. 
Gospel preached grazzs, 189, 190. 
Goudge, H. L., 99, 100, 161, 162, 
168, 226, 245, 262, 352. 
Gould, Baring, 139. 
Grace, 4, 60, 83, 341, 401. 
Grace, Saying, 221, 223. 
Gray, G. B., 68, 204. 
Greek commentators, 33, 
359, 371. 
Greek prejudices, 87, 329, 346. 
Greeting, The Apostolic, 3. 
Gregory of Nazianzus, 218. 
Gregory of Nyssa, 358. 
Gregory, C. R., 44, 87, 233, 391. 
Grenfell and Hunt, 171. 
Griesbach, 165. 
Grotius, 62, 251, 294, 390. 
Gwatkin, H. M., 168, 238. 


27; 37; 





407 

Hair, long or short, 231, 235. 

Harnack, 25, 148, 161, 181, 230, 
260, 266, 280, 285, 325, 338, 
342, 397, 398. 

Hastings, D&., 43, 90, 100, 102, 
103, 144, 169, 178, 194, 210, 
213, 216, 240, 245, 249, 257, 
ZOO; 01200,00319) 1300, 301. 


384, 4or. 
DEG AA 245, 25719 313) 304: 

Hatch, E., 306, 353. 

Hawkins, Sir John, 49, 86, 261, 
Bie 

Head, Christ as, 229, 373. 

Healings, 266, 280. 

Heart, 40, 318. 

Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 


338. 
Hefele, 180. 
Heinichen, 88. 
Heinrici, 3, 10, 39, 40, 43, 45, 127, 


157. 

Helvidian theory, 182. 

Heraclitus, 362. 

Heresies, 239, 240. 

Flermas, Shepherd of, 161, 280. 

Herodotus, 60, 236, 328, 363. 

Herveius Burgidolensis, 2, 7, 8, 9, 
13, 23, 66, 76, 99, 104, 148, 
154, 156, 160, 168, 172, 188, 


LOZ." ZO], 200,822.05) 23558 23 
326, 339, 369. 

Hesychius, 293. 

Hicks, E., 93. 

Hicks, K. L., 247, 285. 

Hilgenfeld, 325. 

Hobhouse, W., 20. 

Hofmann, J. C. K., 114. 

Holsten, 144, 233, 325. 

Holy, 2, 67, 142, 158, 383. 

Holy Spirit, 33, 43-46, 51, 66, 129, 
268, 272. 

Homer, 126) 129, 196," 236) 252; 
265, 282, 309. 

Homoeoteleuton, 191, 216, 220, 
398 


Hooker, 358. 

Hope, Christian, 300, 350, 351. 

Horace, 77, 194, 253, 363. 

Horsley, J. W., 359. 

Hort; 28,0575) 595175, 129, 145,151, 
154, 206, 207, 236, 239, 242, 
ZOR E27 Os ZOls 20296 32450 208, 
364, 372, 383, 389, 395, 397; 
398. 


Humour, 160. 
Husbands of unbelievers, 141-144. 


408 


Idols, 105, 147, 166, 169, 215-217, 


259. 
Food offered to, 162-174, 215. 
Ignatius, 37, 66, 77, 102, 103, 119, 
187, 197, 214, 224, 379, 392, 
394, 396. 
Image of God, 231. 

Immortality, 375, 377; cf. 195. 
Imperatives, 71, 77, 127, 129, 133, 
134, 153, 220, 245, 328, 393. 

Imperfect tense, 57, 153, 254. 

Impurity and idolatry, 163, 260. 

Incest, The case of, 93-108. 

Independence impossible, 
282. 

Indwelling, Divine, 46, 66, 128. 

Inflation, Corinthian, 82, 91, 96, 
164. 

Inge, W. R., 286, 320, 340. 

Inspiration, 46, 205, 323, 351. 

Institution, The words of, 244-248. 

Interpolations, 20, 34, 54, 103, 130, 
135; 142, 159, 222, 224, 229, 
246, 249, 251, 252, 325; 327s 
374, 401. 

Interpretation of Tongues, 268, 307, 
By SPs 

Interrogatives, Doubtful, 113, 115, 
117, 146, 153, 184. 

Invocation, Eucharistic, 135. 

Irenaeus, 18, 53, 207, 357. 

Irony; 14, $3; 10%, 1135 163, 6311, 
325, 326. 

Isaiah, 19, 41, 50, 316, 353. 

Israel, The new, 199, 279. 

Isthmian Games, 194. 

Itacism, 375. 


274-278, 


Jacquier, 226. 

James, Epistle of, 3, 239. 

James, gh Lord’s brother, 279, 336, 
33°- 

Jealousy, 53, 282, 293, 394. 

Jeremy, Epistle of, 156. 

Jerome, 41, 76, 313, 372. 

‘Jerusalem,’ Forms of the name, 
386. 

‘Jesus,’ St Paul’s use of the Name, 
177. 

Jews, 22, 191, 224, 272. 

Job, Book of, 70, 71, 76, 99. 

Jonathan the high priest, 393. 

Jonson, 77. 

Josephus, 32, 85, 225, 289, 291, 354. 

Journal of Theological Studies, 119, 
182,261, 265; 272, 328i0de7s 
373) 375. 











INDEXES 


Jowett, B., 204, 382. 

Jubilees, Book of, 99, 152, 217, 233, 
253, 371. 

Judaizing party, 12, 118, 124, 179, 
180, 185, 382. 

Judgment, Human, 76, 77. 

Judgment, Temporal, 252-254. 

Judgment, The Day of, 7, 63, 76, 78, 
100, 170, 208, 254. 

Judith, Book of, 129, 309. 

Jiilicher, 202, 226, 242. 

Junias, 279. 

Justice, Courts of, 108-117. 

Justification, 27, 77, 120. 

Justin Martyr, 22, 202, 240, 271, 313, 


399. 
Juvenal, 31, 49. 


Kaftan, J., 103, 118, 122, 168, 202, 
226. 

Kant, 102. 

Keble, 253. 

Kennedy, H. A. A., 209, 216. 

Kephas, II, 73, 335- 

‘Kephas’ party, 12, 66, 336. 

Khomiakoff, 253. 

Kingdom of God, 37, 92, 118, 354, 

539521075: 

Kirkpatrick, 49, 68. 

Kiss, The holy, 399. 

Klostermann, 283. 

Knowledge, 5, 163-165, 265, 289, 
297, 308. 

Knowling, J. R., 87, 226, 243, 245, 
313, 333, 334, 357, 358, 376, 
383, 384, 387, 393, 397. 

Kraus, 230, 256, 399. 

Krenkel, Max, 139, 334, 362. 

Kuenen, 46. 


Lachmann, 75, 
396, 398. 

Lapide, Cornelius a, 50, 246. 

La Rochefoucauld, 315. 

Latham, 334. 

Latimer, 77, 157, 291. 

Latin texts, 32, 68,75, IOI, 102, 159, 
309, 315. 

Law, Mosaic, 183, 191, 192, 325. 

Lawsuits, 108-117. 

Leaven, 101. 

Liberty, Christian, 122, 123, 143, 
146, 149, 158, 173, 219, 224, 
230. 


89, 93, 165, 188, 


Lietzmann, 149, 197. 


Life, 73, 350, 369, 372, 373: 
Life in Christ, 353, 373. 


INDEXES 


Lightfoot, 3, 6, 8, 13, 18, 21, 22, 27, 


28, 34, 42, 44, 45, 59, 81, 88, | 
98, 113, 123, 130, 144, 152, 157; | 


193, 212, 214, 272, 279, 292, 
299, 318, 333, 338; 363, 369, 
_, 389, 391, 396, 398. 

Litigation, 108-117. 

Litotes, ror. 

Liturgies, 42, 130, 135, 233, 248, 
372, 402. 

Livy, 158, 246, 263, 269. 

Lock, W., 61. 

Long, G., 129, 158. 

Longinus, 34. 

Lord, the title of, 28, 40, 92, 148, 
206, 261, 361. 

Lord’s Day, 103, 384. 

Lord’s Supper, 240; see ‘ Eucharist.’ 

Lost letters of St Paul, 104, 105. 

Love, 164, 165, 305, 394. 

Psalm in praise of, 285-300. 

Love-feasts, 239-241. 

Lucian, 23. 

Lucretius, 22, 205, 310. 

Luke, St, 37, 266. 

Luke and Paul, Words common to, 
49, 86, 108, 261, 290, 315, 320, 
321, 393- 

Luther, 47, 58, 63, 70, 88, 143, 166, 
190, 234, 272, 297, 400. 


Maccabees, Fourth Book of the, 169, 
195, 241, 273, 276, 349, 353, 
365, 378. 

Macedonia, 387, 391. 

Magic, 100. 

Manna, The, 200. 

Mansfield College Essays, 243. 

Manual labour, 87. 

Manumission, 147, 148. 

Maran atha, 400, 4or. 

Marcion, 18, 26, 37, 130, 206, 233, 


Marcus Aurelius, 75, 116, 167, 
269; 273, 274, 293, 294, 307, 
2 


Marriage and its problems, 130-161. 
Marriages, Mixed, 141. 
Second, 160, 
Martha and Mary, 158. 
Martial, 385. 
Mary Magdalen, 335, 336. 
Masculine or neuter, 47, 88, 259. 
Mason, A. J., 343- 
Massie, J., 200. 
Mattathias, 394. 
Matthias, 336. 





409 


Mayor, J. B., 70, 115, 228, 282, 305, 
372, 38 9, 400. 

Meats offered to idols, 162-174, 215. 

Melanchthon, 358. 

Melinus, A. Aurius, 96. 

Menander, 197, 363. 

Menenius Agrippa, 269. 

Messianic Kingdom, 84, III, 355- 


357: 

Methodius, 130. 

Meyer, 6, 19, 39, 41, 45, 52, 77, 359. 

Michelsen, 7, 188. 

Middle voice, 6, 139, 145, 278, 309. 

Military analogies and metaphors, 

__ 182, 309, 328, 354, 393. 

Milligan, G., 78, 112, 153, 156, 177, 

17O,- 2ORE225. 22052 5en 320. 
337; 359, 356, 386, 397, 400. 

Milligan, W., 380. 

Ministers, 56, 74. 

Minister-worship, 55, 72, 83, 393. 

Miracles, 197, 266. 

Mirrors, 298. 

Moffatt, J., 163, 178, 219, 325. 

Monasticism, 134. 

Moses, 200, 298. 

Mosheim, 22. 

Moulton, J. H., 115, 133, 196, 209, 
221, 255, 259, 300, 307, 308, 
310, 311, 328, 334, 350, 369, 
376, 385. 

Mountains, Moving, 290, 

Mozley, J. B., 253. 

Miiller, 371. 

Mummius, 64. 

Murmuring, 206. 

Murray, J. O. F., 343. 

Music, 308, 312. 

Mysteries, Pagan, 35, 213, 247, 260, 
289. 


Mystery, 37; 75, 215, 249, 289, 306, 
357, 369, 377- 


Name, 13. 

Name of the Lord, 3, 10, 98, 120. 

Natalis Alexander, 259. 

Natural man, 44, 48, 49, 54, 183, 
61. 


301 
Nature, Dictates of, 231, 235, 276. 
Nero, 197. 
Nestle, 130, 206. 
Neuter gender significant, 25, 358. 
Nicholson, E. W. B., 338. 
Nietzsche, 131. 
Nominative for vocative, 369. 
Novatian, 323, 351. 
Numbers, Inaccuracy about, 205. 


410 


Oaths, 361. 

Oecumenius, 93. 

Official Witnesses to the Resurrection, 
335-343- 4 : 
Officials not yet appointed at Corinth, 

56, 256, 263, 284. 

Old Testament, use of the; see 
‘Quotation’ and ‘Septuagint’ 
and ‘ Allegorical interpretation.’ 

Onkelos, 200. 

Ophites, 261. 

Order, Divine, 354. 

Ecclesiastical, 328. 
Orelli, 388. 
Origen, 6, 13, 33, 39, 41, 55, 62, 70, 


72, 82, 86, 91, 97, 98, 99, 100, 
103, 104, 107, 108, 116, 118, 
119, 125, 135, 136, 149, 153, 
154, 182, 184, 190, 191, 192, 
203, 222, 240, 261, 273, 293, 
308, 309, 316, 323, 332, 336, 
348, 352, 358, 361, 303, 372, 392. 
Orr, J., 370. 


Ovid, 68, 196, 311. 
Oxymoron, 21, 310. 
Oxyrhynchus papyri, 84, 171. 


Paley, 381. 

Papyri, 10, 33, 35, 84, 89, I12, 115, 
140, 157, 171, 188, 196, 205, 
310, 315, 328, 376, 333, 386, 
397, 400. 

Paradox, 21, 70. 

Parousia, 64, 354, 396. 

Participle, Use of the, 26, 172, 196, 
379, 379. 

Passive voice, 273, 348, 350. 

in late Greek, 122. 

Passover, IOI-104. 

Patriarchs, Testaments of the X/1., 
152, 233, 253, 316, 385, 394. 
Paul, St, his authority ; see ‘ Apos- 

tolic.’ 
his celibate life, 138, 139, 181. 
his conversion, 177, 189, 286, 338. 
his independence, 87. 

Peace, 4, 143, 144, 323, 324, 391. 

Pearson, Bishop, 356. 

Pelagius, 83. 

Pentecost, 389. 

Perfect tense, 2, 192, 334. 

‘ Perishing,’ 18, 172, 354. 

Persecution, 87, 295, 390. 

Persius, 165. 

Personifications, 292. 

Peter, St, 37, 181; see ‘ Kephas.’ 

Petronius, 363. 





INDEXES 


Philo, 6, 53, 113, 147, 183, 184, 194, 
201, 299, 311. 

Phoebe, 10. 

Photius, 146. 

Pindar, 46, 195. 

Plato, 33, 60, 68, 88, 89, 119, 180, 
197, 277, 319 347, 365, 388. 

Play upon words, 67, 194, 252. 

Pliny, 25, 261. 

Plural, 2, 87, 149, 179, 186, 310, 386. 

Plutarch, 102, 292. 

Polybius, 140, 264. 

Polycarp, Epistle of, 111, 119, 379. 

Pope, Alexander, 274, 277. 

Prayer, 135, 229, 230, 311-313. 

Predestination, 18, 83. 

Pre-existence of Christ, 38, 168, 201. 

Presence, The Real, 244, 245, 248. 

Priests and Levites, 187. 

Primasius, 13523) ‘5Sifs 72. 4507s 
154, 1615, 165, (22%, .233, 278; 
283, 291, 339, 352, 355, 362, 

_ 369, 373, 385. 

Prisca, 398. 

Pronoun, Pleonastic, 64. 

Prophesying, 230, 266, 279, 289, 
306-326. 

Propitiation ; see ‘ Atonement.’ 

Proselytes, 97. 

Protagoras, 50. 

Proverbs, Book of, 44, §9, 281, 315. 

Psalms, Improvised, 320. 

Psalms of Solomon, 89, 152, 281, 
353, 394 

Psychology of St Paul, 44, 49, 373- 

Punctuation, Questions of, 70, 75, 83, 


114, 155, 157, 165, 172, 188, 
275, 29 

Punishment, 18, 65, 67, 
172, 354. 

Purgatory, 64. 

Pusey, 253. 

Pythagoras, 36. 


Eternal, 


Quintilian, 273. 

Quotation, 50, 70, 204, 220, 363. 

Quotations often free, 19, 28, 41, 71, 
316, 373. 


Rabbinical teaching, 20, 53, 81, 97, 
IIO, 124, 125, 201, 298, 313, 368. 

Rabiger, 12. 

Ragg, L., 266. 

Ramsay, Sir W., 87, 89, 105, 164, 
178, 193, 194, 213, 232, 242, 
247, 277, 362, 383, 387, 388, 
399, 400. 


INDEXES 


Ransom, Metaphor of, 129. 

Readings, Important various, 32, 
130, 135, 142, 157, 170, 189, | 
206, 222, 246, 260, 291, 327, | 
376, 378. 

Reason in worship, Function of the, 
312. 

Redemption, 27. 

Renan, 26, 81, 99, 105, 186, 281, 398. 

Rendall, G. H., 100, 383, 384. 

Resch, 43, 156, 157, 168, 184, 192, 
210, 211, 240, 300, 327, 338. 

Resurrection, Doctrine of the, 124, 
328-380. 

Resurrection of Christ, 124, 330-364. 

Retaliation, 88, 116. 

Revelation, 43, 63, 322. 

Revised Version, 15, 118, 119, 184, 
2045 208; 252, 2IAy 207) 225; 
252, 261, 350. 

Rewards for virtue, 360. 

Rhemish Version, 349, 385. 

Rhythm in the Epistle, 285, 365, 378. 

Ridley and Latimer, 291. 

Righteousness, 27. 

Ritschl, 36. 

Ritual, 212, 213, 243, 246, 248, 256, 
320. 

Robertson, A. T., II, 12, 243, 335. 

Robertson, F. W., 7, 11, 14, 55, 312. 

Robinson, C. H., 331, 368. 

Robinson, E., 183. 

Robinson, J. A., 4, 37, 59, 93, 177; 
221, 261, 263, 264, 268, 272, 
299, 326, 355, 358, 376, 398. 

Rock, 201. 

Rod, Figurative use of, 92, 93. 

Roman tribunals, IIo. 

Rulers of this world, 37, 39. 

Rutherford, W. G., 208, 242, 361. 





Sabatier, A., 340, 341. 
Sacrifices, Heathen, 88, 166, 169, 215. 
Jewish, 215. 

Sadducees, 329, 354, 365. 

Saints, I11, 325, 395. 

Salmeron, 194. 

Salutations, The Apostolic, 1, 397,399. 

Salvation, 18, 38, 65, 100, 193, 225, 
331. 

Sanctification, 2, 27, 120, 141, 142. 

Sanday, 74, 103, 119, 124, 155, 168, 
174, 243, 262, 334, 375. 

Sanday and Headlam, 155, 167, 247, 
263, 352, 381, 398, 402. 

Sanhedrin, 90, 138. 

Sassia, 96. 


411 


Satan, 45, 81, 98, 99, 260. 

Saul and Paul, 341. 

Scapegoats, 88. 

Schaff, 401. 

Schiele, 249, 351. 

Schiller-Szinessy, 400. 

Schmiedel, 37, 40, 43, 148, 198, 214, 
243, 325, 357- 

Schiirer, 43. 

Seal, Figurative use of, 178. 

Second Adam, 357, 373, 374- 

Second Advent, 7, 63, 155, 300, 354, 


374. 
believed to be near, 155, 376, 377. 
SelDIew eres 7751 Ole 
Self-examination, 251. 
Seneca, 84, 86, 156, 167, 178, 195, 
277, 377: 
Septuagint, 28, 42, 71, 92, 103, 107, 


122, 126; 130) 1153; 160) 174, 
172, OS, 20sec lowe 2 7aezee. 
253, 262, 275, 316, 374, 378, 
388, 394. 


Serapion, 248. 

Serapis, 171, 217. 

Sexes, Equality between, 134, 141,234. 

Silvanus, 186, 188. 

Skinner, J., 388. 

Slave of Christ, 149, 191. 

Slavery, 147. 

Sleep, Figurative use of, 253, 337- 

Smith, Dr. Richard, 291. 

Smyrna, Epistle of the Church of, 3. 

Social aspect of the sacraments, 215, 
272 

Socrates, 180, 195, 241, 273, 319. 

Sophocles, 46, 325. 

Sosthenes, 2, 5. 

Soteriology, 129, 149; see ‘ Atone- 
ment’ and ‘ Redemption.’ 

Souter, A., 325. 

Spirit, 44, 46, 49, 98, 100, 372. 

Spirit, Holy, 33, 43-46, 51, 66, 129, 
268, 272 

Spirit of the world, 45. 

Spiritual body, 372. 

Spiritual gifts, 5, 46, 257-284, 301- 
328. 

Spurious letters of St Paul, 104, 105. 

Stanley, 74, 104, 107, 146, 147, 152, 
158, 167, 232, 234, 245, 252, 
281, 292, 296, 358, 360. 

Statius, 92. 

Steck, R., 81. 

Stephanas, 15, 95, 395- 

Stewards, 74, 75. 

Stewart and Tait, 368. 


412 


Stoics, 33, 72, 84. 

Stone, Darwell, 248. 

Studia Biblica, 247, 285. 

Style of St Paul, 7, 26, 72, 82, 86, 
89, 91, 197, 225, 268, 386; see | 
‘Rhythm.’ 


Sub-deacons, 74. 

Subjunctive, Deliberative, 93, 125. 
with e/, 308. 

Subordination, Principle of, 270, 273, 


275. 
Subordination of the Son, 229, 





355. 

Sudden transitions, 95, 351, 358, 
379- 

Suetonius, 197. 

Suicer, 74, 180, 261, 263, 293, 314, 
383, 399: 

Sunday, 246, 384. 

Swete, H. B., 162, 182, 253, 306, 
318, 335, 337, 338, 352, 356, 


365, 374 377, 399, 397, 
00 


400. 

Symbolism, 200, 201, 229, 250, 299, 
353, 377- 

Syncellus, 146, 


Table of the Lord, 107, 217, 218. 

Tacitus, IOI, 230. 

Talmud, The, 368. 

Teachers, Qualifications of, 195, 279, 
284. 

Temple, The, 187. 

Temple of God, 66-68, 128. 

Temple of idols, 171, 203. 

Temptation, 134, 209. 

Tense, Change of, 139, 146, 160, 
192, 307, 317, 355, 357s 364. 
Tertullian, 4, 20, 60, 67, 85, 88, 102, 
107, 138, 147, 154, 161, 172, 
180, 207, 201, 217, 220,) 230; 
233, 281, 293, 299, 315, 320, 
325, 359, 372, 374, 378, 


399- 
Testament, 247. 


Testament of the Lord, 399. 
Zestaments of the XI]. Patriarchs, 
152, 233, 253, 316, 385, 394. 

Text of the Epistle, 161. 

Thackeray, H. St John, 37, 43, 99, 
TI2147,' 1S2, 184; (201, 210; 
229, 373- 

Thanksgiving, 4, 313, 314. 

Eucharistic, 211, 213, 243, 244, 
248. 
Theatre, 85. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 47. 


INDEXES 


Theodoret, 18, 19, 34, 38, 62, 74, 
106, I14, 145, 205, 250, 272, 


375. 
Theodotion, 378. 
Theodotus, 233. 
Theophilus, 273. 
Theophylact, 33, 266, 316, 321, 
2 


392. 

Therapeutae, The, 320. 

Third day, On the, 334. 

Thirlwall, Bishop, 244, 245. 

Thomson, W. M., 232. 

Thorburn, T. J., 335, 340, 379. 

Thucydides, 276. 

Tiberius, 289. 

Tibullus, 134. 

Timothy, 89, 90, 91, 147, 186, 188, 
I9I, 390, 391. 

Tischendorf, 215, 242. 

Tisserant, 42. 

Titus, 147, 382. 

Tongues, Gift of, 267, 268, 279, 282, 
289, 297, 395-321. 

Tradition, 103, 228, 242. 

Transubstantiation, 245. 

Tregelles, 89, 113. 

Trench, 81, 102, 103, 251, 254, 261, 


289, 400. 
Trinity, Doctrine of the, 120, 
262. 


Triplets, 25, 72, 86, 291, 300, 308, 
318, 355. 

Trumpet, 309, 377. 

Trying God, 205, 218. 

Twelve, The, 336, 338, 339. 

Tyndale, 88, 146, 234, 313, 349, 
385, 395. 

Types, 200, 203. 


Union with Christ, 214, 274, 277. 

Unity, Duty of, 277, 278. 

Unity of the Church, 214, 225, 271, 
274, 276. 

Universalism, 353. 


Valerius Flaccus, 196. 

Vegetius, 388. 

Veil, Use of the, 229-236. 

Veitch, 231. 

Verses, Bad division of, 275. 

Vicarious suffering, 333. 

Vices and virtues, 119. 

Virgil, 63, 93, 196, 253, 337- 

Virgins, 150-160. 

Visions, 32. 

Visits to Corinth, St Paul’s, 53, 92, 
387-390. 


INDEXES 


Vulgate, 3, 20, 48, 57, 58, 59, 65, 
67, 69, 77, 83, 85, 102, 107, I10, 
II4, 129, 152, 154, 166, 207, 
205,213; 214, 224, 2535, 202) 
290, 294, 313, 315, 374, 397- 

Errors of the, 87, 118, 129, 159, 
246, 281, 294, 308, 310. 


Walton, Izaac, 164. 

Walther, 202, 226. 

Way, A. S., 145. 

©Weak,’ The, 169, 171, 173, 192, 221. 

Weinel, 131, 147, 168, 177, 184, 203, 
_ 217, 270, 307, 314, 325, 342, 358. 

Weiss), Ba, 22, 145, 17150 179; 104, 


356. 

Westcott, 24, 38, 57, 147, 154, 208, 
234, 245, 247, 248, 254, 264, 
294, 387, 388. 

Westcott and Hort (WH.), 32, 83, 
108, 114, 145, 157, 161, 179, 
180, 188, 194, 201, 202, 205, 
217, 242, 260, 291, 324, 377, 
385, 388, 389, 391. 

Wetstein, 30, 46, 54, 114, I15, 217, 
246, 273, 310, 314, 358, 394. 

Weymouth, R. F., 145. 

Wiclif, 242, 349. 

Widows, 138, 139, 160, 161. 

Wild beasts, 362, 390. 

Wilhelm, J., 263. 

Will of God, 1, 92, 392. 

Williams, Lukyn, 145, 190. 


413 


Wisdom, Book of, 17, 89, 111, 147, 
158, 166, 195, 200, 204, 206, 209, 
_ 309, 348, 363, 364, 374, 388. 
Wisdom, False, 20-34, 70, 84 
Wisdom of God, 21, 23, 35, 37, 39, 
201. 
Wisdom and knowledge, 265, 267. 
Wisdom, Word of, 265. 
Wives of missionaries, 180. 
of unbelievers, 141-144. 
* Woes of the Messiah,’ 152. 
Woman inferior to man, 229-231. 
yet equal to man, 134, 141, 234. 
Women at Corinth, 229, 324-326. 
Women not official witnesses, 336. 
Work and reward, 63-65, 87, 178, 
187, 189, 193, 380, 391, 396. 
World, The (xécpos), 20, 21, 73, 85, 
88, 106, III, 156-158, 166, 254, 
310. 
Spirit of, 45. 
World, The (aldv), 20, 70. 
Rulers of, 37, 39. 
Wright, W. Aldis, 157, 164. 


Xenophon, 53, 167, 241, 273, 388. 

Zahn, 66, 104, 243, 301, 335, 391; 
40l. 

Zarmano-chegas, 292. 

Zeno, 84. 


Zeugma, 52. 
Zeus, 129. 


INDEX II. GREEK WORDS. 


ayapos, Vil.8, 11, 32; 34: 

ayar de, il. 9; viii, 3. 

ayarn, iv. 21, Vili. I, X11. I-13, etc. 
ayamnros, iv. 14, 17, X. 14, xv. 58. 

ayyeRos, Iv. veo Vi. 35 Xl. IO, xii 'T. 


ayevns, 1. 

ayaa, 1 iP 2, Vie Li vine Ras 

dyiar pos, 1. 30: 

Gywos, i. 2, ill. 17, Vi. I, 2, Vii. 14, 


etc. 
ayvoew, x. I, Xil. I, XIV. 38. 
adyvecia, XV. 34. 
ayopatw, Vi. 20, vii. 23, 30. 
(y@, Xil. 2. 
ayevitopa, 1x. 25. 
*"Addp, XV. 22, 45. 


adarravos, ix. 18. 

adeAdn, Vil. 15, ix. 5. 

adeApos, i. I, 10, 26, v. IT, vi. 5, 
Vil. 12, 14, Vill. TT; 1x2 5; etc. 

adndos, xiv. 8. 

adnaws, ix. 26. 

adikéew, vi. 74 Os 

adixia, xiii. 6. 

adtKos, Vi. I, 9. 

addxtpos, ix. 27. 

aCupos, Wer 7aOs 

anp, 1X. 26, xiv. 9. 

a@avacia, xv. 53, 54- 

aberew, i. 19. 

aia, x. 16, xi. 25, 27, xv. §0. 

aiviypa, Xill. 12. 


414 


aipeots, xi. 19. 

apo, Ve 2, vi. 15. 

air xpos, xi. 6, xiv. 35. 

airéo, 1. 22. 

aiov, 1. 20, ii. G, 75. 5, ili. 18, vill. 
190%. 11. 

dxaBapros, vil. 14. 

axapros, XIV. 14. 

dxataxahu ros, et Ie 

dxaragracia, XIV. 33. 

axon, xii. L7- 

axohovbew, 6, Jibs 

akovw, li. 9, v- I, xi. 

axkpacia, vil. 5. 

axpoBvaria, vil. 18, 19. 

"AkvAas, Xvi. 19. 

ak@v, 1X. 17. 

adXaddfo, xiil. I. 

aAnOeca, v. 8, xiii. 6. 

GANG, iii. 7, iv. 3, vi. 8, IT, vil. 19, 
etc. 

d\Adooe, XV. 51, 52. 

aAAnAous, Vii. 5, Xl. 33, Xl. 25, XVI. 
20. 

@dos, ili. 10, x. 
Xv. 39, 41, etc. 

dAoda, ix. 9, 10. 


18, xiv. 2. 


29, xii. 8-10, 


dpaptdva, vi. 18, vii. 28, 36, vill. 


12, XV. 34. 
dpdprynpa, vi. 18. 
dpapria, XV. 3, 17, 56. 
ape pyvos, Vil. 32. 
dperaxivyros, xv. 58. 
apyy, xiv. 16, [xvi. 24]. 
dprrehor, i 1X, 7. 
av, iv. 5; vii. 

etc. 
ava HE pos, xiv. 27. 
ava peoov, vi. 5. 
dvaBaive, i il. 9. 
dvaykaios, “il. 22; 
avaykn, Vii. 26, 37, 1x. 16. 
avaBepa, xil. 35 Xvi. 22. 
dvakpiva, il. 14, 15, 1Vs 3, 4 1X03) 

X. 25, 27, xiv. 24. 
dvapipynoKe, iv 17. 
avduvnats, xt 24, 25, 
avaévos, Vi. 2. 
avakiws, x27. 
avarrava, xvi. 18. 
dvarAnpoa, xiv. 16, xvi. 17. 
avdoraots, XV. 12, 13, 21, 42. 


5, Xk 27) 345, SL © 


. 


. 


INDEXES 


avdpifopa, xvi. 13. 

dvéyxAyros, i. 8. 

avéxopat, iv. 12. 

avnp, vil. 2, 4, 10, II, 13; 14, Xi. 3; 
3, Lis, 12) Silt. II, Xiv. 35, etc. 

avOparivos, i li. 13, IV. 3, X- 13. 

avOpwros, il. 5, 9, 11, ill. 35 4, 21, 
iv. 9, Vii. 23, ix. 8, xiii. I, XV. 21, 
32; 45, 47, etc. 

aviary pL, X. 7. 

avolya, XV1. 9- 

avopos, 1X. 21. 

avi, x1. 15. 

avTiketpat, XVI. 9. 

avriAnpyis, xii. 28. 

afws, XVi. 4. 

dmayyedXa, Xiv. 25. 

dmdya, Xil. 2. 

amapxn, XV. 20, 23, Xvi. 15. 

(Tet, V. 3. 

amex béxopat, i. 7. 

dmeXevbepos, Vil. 22. 

amepiomaor@s, Vil. 35. 

dmuoros, vi. 6, vil. 12-15, xX. 27, 
XIV. 22, etc. 

7d, 1. 30, IV. 5, Vi. 
xiv. 36, etc. 

arodetkvupt, | lv. 9. 

amodetkts, 1 il. 4. 

aTrobidwput, Vil. 3. 

amoOvnoKe, Viil. 
31, 32, etc 

aTOKAAUTTO, Ii. 10, ili. 13, Xiv. 30. 

dmoKdduyts, | 1. 7; xiv. 6, 26. 

aT OK PUTO, iis 7: 

a7odAups, 1. 18, 
10, xv. 18. 

‘ArroAAas, 1. 
Xvi. 12. 

amoXoyia, | IX. 3. 

atroXove, Vi. II. 

adrodvTpwots, i 30. 

arootéAXo, i. 17. 

am OOTEPEW, vi. 7, 8, Vii. 5. 

adtoorToAn, 1x. 2. 

amdatonos, i. I, iv. 9, ix. I, 5, 
xii. 28, xv. 7, etc. 

dmopéepa, XVI. 3. 

dm porKorros, X. 32. 

dmropat, vil. I. 

apa, V. 10, Vil. 14, XV. 14, 15, 18. 

apyvpwy, ili. 12. 


19, X. 44, xi. 23, 
IF, 1% 


15, XV. 3, 


19, Vill. Ti, a, 


12, ill. 4-6, 22, iv. 6, 


INDEXES 


dpérKa, vii. 32-34, X. 33. 

dporpiaw, Ixe TOs 

dpraé, v. 10, II, vi. 10. 

dppworos, xi. 30. 

dpoevoxoirns, Vi. 9. 

apt, IVs ELS 13, Vill. 
Sve Onexvi. 7 

ipros, x. 16, 17, xi. 23, 26-28. 

apxn, XV. 24. 

apXirexTov, ili. 

apxwv, il. 6, 8. 

doGéveta, li. 3, XV. 43. 

doOevéa, Vili. [1, 12. 

doOevns, i. 25, iv. 10, vili. 7, ix. 22, 
Xi. 30, etc. 

Agia, XVi. 19. 

dom a Copa, Xvi. 19, 20, 

domacpos, XVi. 21. 

doraréo, lv. II. 

darnp, XV. 41. 

doxnpovew, vil. a Soles 

doXNpov, xil. 

dripia, xl. 14, x = 43. 

drips, iV. 10; Xil. 23: 

aropos, XV. 52. 

avhéopuat, XIV. 7. 

adhés, XIV. 7. 

atpov, XV. 32. 

arn, Vile. 12, 1x:/3,, fc; 

avTn, Vil. 12, XI. I4, 15. 

autos, ll. 15, ill. 15, ix. 20, 27. 

ap@apoia, xv. 42, 50. 

apOapros, 1G KV-.G 2s 5 3. 

aginpt, Vii. 11, 12, 13. 

apoBas, xvi. 10, 

appar, XV. 36. 

dipavos, Xll. 2, xiv. IO. 

’Axaia, XVi. 15. 

'Axaixés, XV1. 17. 

ay pt, iv. Il, xi. 26, xv. 25. 


iiyuxos, XIV. 7. 


Fie albhty 2s 


To. 


BaOos, ii. 10. 
Barrio, i. 
Xv. 29. 

BapBapos, xiv. 11. 

BapvaBas, ix. 6. 

Bacwrela (Geov), iv. 20, vi. 9, IO, 
XV. 24, 50. 

Baowreva, iv. 8, xv. 25. 

BeBatda, 1. 6, 8. 

Biwrikds, Vi. 3, 4. 


13-17, x. °2, 








415 


Praodnpéw, x. 30. 

Bhér@, i. 26, iii. 10, vili. 9, x. 12, etc 
BovaAn, iv. 5. 

BovXopay, X11. IT. 

Bods, ix. 9. 

Bpoxos, Vil. 35. ee 

Bpopa, iil. 2, vi. 13, viii. 8, 13, x. 3. 
Bpeats, vill. 4. 


Tatos, 1. 14. 

yana, iil. 2, ix. 7. 

Yadaria, xvi. 1. 

yapéa, vil. 9, 28, 33, 36, etc. 
yapivo, vil. 38. 


Ys iv. Shi, Sh, abies 
yevvde, iv. IS. 
yevos, xil. IO, 28, Xiv. 10. 


yeapyvov, lil. 9. 

Yip Vill. 5, X. 26, xv. 47. z 

yivopat, 1. 30, il. 3, iv. 16, vii. 21, 
23W IX. 22, Xill. I, X1V. 20, xv. 45, 
54, etc. 

yivaoke, i, 21, il. 8, iil. 20, viii. 2, 
Bet. 

yracea, Be 10, 28, 90, xiii, 1, 
X1v. 2-0, etc. 

yvopn, 1. 10, vil. 25, 40. 

yropiCo, xi, 3, XV. I. 

yveors, 1. 5, Vill. 1, 7, xii. 8, xiii. 2, 
Opetce 

yoyyite, X. 10, 

ypappareus, 1. 20. 

ypadn, XV. 3y 4. er 

Herta i. 1, lt. Gulls, TOatvena? 
vu. I ix. 9, 10, 15, XIV. 37,5 ete. 

YPNYOPE®, XVI. 13. 

yuRViTeva, iv. II, 

yurn, Vv. I, vil. I-16, 1x. 5, xi. 3, 
5-15, Xlv. 34, etc. 

daipoviov, x. 20, 21. 

Sei, vill. 2, xi. 19, xv. 

Serevive xi. 3I. 

dev véw, xi. 25. 

detmvov, Xi. 20, 21. 

dépa, ix. 26. 

Sevrepos, xii. 28, xv. 47. 

d€xopat, ii. 14. 

déw, vii. 27, 39. 

87, vi. 20. 

OnAos, XV. 27. 

dAdo, i. II, ili. 13. 


25, 53- 


416 


did c. Sens io Ny SE, 18 SW. 1S, 
Vili. 6, xiii. 12, xv. 21, etc. | 

dud ¢. acc., iv. 6, 10, 17, Vi. 7, Vil. 
2,15, 20, 1K. 10, 23, x1. 9, etc. 

Subic; xi. 25. 

Siaipeis, xii. 4-6. 

diatpew, xii. 11. 

Otaxovia, xii. 5, xvi. 15. 

Sidxovos, lil. 5. 

diax picts, xii. 10. 

diaroyiopds, iil. 20. 

StacroAn, xiv. 7. 

divardooew, Vii. 
xvi. I. 

diapepa, xv. 41. 

édaxros, ii. 13. 

didacKaXos, xii, 28, 29. 

bid@pt, i. 4, iil. (5, 10, ix. I2, etc. 

Svepunveutis, Xiv. 28 ?, 

diepunveva, xil. 30, xiv. 5, etc. 


17, ix. Se eu “443 





diépxopat, x. I, XVI. 5. 
dixavoovvn, i. 30. 


Oikatoa, iv. 4, Vi. II. 

dikaiws, XV. 34. 

&:6, Xil. 3, Xiv. 13. 

did7ep, vill. 13, X. 14. 

dudT1, Xv. 9. 

du do, iv. II. 

dit@x@, iv. 12, xiv. I, Xv. 9. 

doxéw, ili. 18, iv. 9, vil. 40, Vill. 2, 
= i2; xi. 16, Kil, 22,23, xiv. 37" 

Boxipdte, i Be p< 28, Xvi. 3. 

Box ipos, xi. 19. 

d0£a, ii. 7, 8, xX. 31, xi. 7, etc. 

do0€alw, vi. 20, xii. 26. 

dovrAaywyéw, 1X. 27. 

dovAos, vil. 21-23, xii. 13. 

SovAda, Vii. 15, ix. 19. 

Spdocopat, i il. 19. 

dvvapas, ii. 14, ili. I, 2, 11, vil. 21, 
= 13, 21, xii. 3, etc 

dvvauis, i, 18, il. 4, iv. 
xil. 10, 28, xiv. II, etc. 

Svar, i. 26. 

8vo, vi. 16, xiv. 27, 29. 

dvognpéa, iv. 13. 

dadexa, ol, xv. 5. 


19, Vv. 4, 


éayv, iv. 15, vi. 18, vii. II, xi. 15, 
Xvi. 3, 6, etc. 
€av pn, vili. 8, ix. 16, xiv. 6, 7, 9, 


II, etc. 


INDEXES 


€avrov, iii. 18, vi. 7, 19, Xi. 31, 
xiv. 28, etc. 

€dw, X. 13. 

eyeipa, Vi. 14, XV. 4, 12, 13, etc. 

éykparevouat, Vii. 9, 1x. 25, 

€y®, 1. 12, ili. 6, iv. 15, V. 3, Vil. 10, 
12, ix. 6, 15, xi. 23, xv. 10, etc. 

é8patos, vii. 37, xv. 58. 

eOvos, i. 23, V. I, X. 20, xii. 2. 

ei, ii. 8, iv. 7, vil. 16, 21, x. 30, etc. 

el BA, | - 14, hts ty fe. 13, xiv. 5, etc. 

ei ov, Vil. 9, XV. 13-32, etc. 

cirep, viii. 5, Xv. 15. 

el TLS, ili. 12, 14, vil. 

eld@XLov, Vill. 10. 

eidwAdOurTos, Vill. I, 4, 7; 10, x. 19. 

cidwdoAarpns, v. 10, il, vicG; = 7 

cidwdov, Vili. 4, 7; x: 19; xie 2 

eik7), XV. 2. 

eixoat Tpeis xuAades, x. 8. 

eik@y, Xl. 7, XV. 49. 

cthex pivia, v. 8. 

civ, | 15, X. 20, XV. 227, CLO 

cis, €govrat, Vi. 16. 

eis, il. 8, iv. 6, vi. 16, Vili. 4, X. 17, 
xi. 5» X11. 9, 13, Xiv. 31, ete. 

civaxove, XIV. 20 

ele pX opal, XIV. 23, 24. 

ira, Xv. 5» 7s. 24. 

ire, ili. 22, viii. 5, x. 31, xii. 13, etc. 

€x, 1. 30, ii. 12, vill. 6, ix. 7, 13, 
xX. 4, x1. 8, 28, xii. 15, xv. 6, etc. 

éx HEpous, xil. 27; xlil. 9, 10, 12. 

éx vexpav, XV. 12, 20. 

€xaoTos, i. 12, iii. 5, 8, iv. 5, Vil. 
7, 17, XV. 23, etc. 

exd€xopat, “1 35, Evil £1: 

€xeivos, ix. 25, x. II, 28, xv. II. 

exxabaipa, V. 7: 

€xxAngia, 1. 2, iv. 17, Vi. 4, Vil. 17, 
X. 32, x1. 16, 18, 22, xii. 28, xiv. 
4, 23, 33, 35, XVi. 19, etc. 

exhéyouat, i 1. 27. 25. 

exvnpa, XV. 34. 

exmeipaco, x79; 

exros, vi. 18, XVew27e 

exros ei uy, XIV. ei xv. 2. 

ExTpopa, XV. 

Ex@y, IX. 17. 

eAaxtaoTos, iv. 3, vi. 2, Xv. 9. 

ed€éyxeTat, Xiv. 24. 

€Xeewvds, XV. 19. 


12, vill. 2, etc. 


INDEXES 


ede€@, Vil. 25. 
edevbepia, x. 29. 


€devbepos, vii. 21, 39, 1X. I, 19, 
ct Oe tee 
"EdAnves, 1. 32,94) X32. Mil.) E35. 


Arriva, xill. 7, Xv. 19, Xvl. 17. 

€Xmis, 1X. 10, Xill. 13. 

€pavtov, iv. 3, 4, 6, vil. 7, 1X. 19, 
X. 33: 

ends, 1 
etc: 

év, i. 2, 5, 10, 17, il. 3, lll. 21, iv. 20, 
21, V. I, vii. 14, ix. 15, x1. 13, 25, 
Nil. 3, -13, Xiil. 12, XV. 3, 12, 22, 
etc. 

ev Xpiorg, i. 2, 4, 30, ili. I, iv. 15, 
17, xv. 18, 19, 31, XVI. 24. 

év Kupia, iV. .17. Vil. 22, 36 -3K. 2, 
2, xi. II, xv. 58, xvi. 19. 

Speatas 3 iv. IO. 

evdve, xv. 53, 54- 

evepyeo, XO Te 

evepynHa, xil. 6, 10. 

evepyisy XVi. 9. 

evt, vl. 5. 

evioTnpt, iii. 22, vii. 26. 

evKoTn, IX. 12. 

Evvopos, iX. 21. 

EVvOXOS, xi. 27. 

evToAN, Vii. 19, Xiv. 37. 

evT pera, iv. 14. 

evTpoTn, vi. 5, XV. 34. 

€v@TLOV, is 29. 

e£aipa, Vv. 13. 

e€arraTaa, | iil. 18. 

eLeyeipa, Vi. 14. 

e£épxopat, V. 10, xiv. 36. 

e€eoruy, Vi. 12, X. 23. 

eLovbevéa, i. 28, vi. 4, Xvi. IT. 

e€ovgia, Vii. 37, Wilts Gy. 1K. 4, .I2 
xi. IO, Xv. 24, etc. 

e€ovoidla, Vi. 12, Vil. 4. 

é£w, ol, v. 12, 13. 

éoprata, V 

érrawew, XA 2, 17; 22. 

Em awvos, Iv. 5. 

erdva, xv. 6. 


SIRs. Vil 40, 1S, 45 xi. 24,525, 


émel, Vv. 10, Vii. I4, xiv. 12, 16, 
XV. 29. ; 
émetby, 1. 22, 22) Kia 1G Mee ts 


€reira, xii. 28, XV. 5-7, 23, 46. 
eT EpwTaw, xiv. 35- 


27 


417 


emt C. gén., Vi. 1, 6;-Vill. 5, Xi. 1G; 

eri ¢. dat., i. 4, IX. JO, Rime IOy 
xiv. 16, xvi. 17. 

€mt C. ACC., ll. Q, ill. 12, vii. 5, 36, 
39, xi. 20, xiv. 23, 25. 

émiBadro, Vil. 35 - 

€miyevos, XV. 40. 

eTly\v@oKo, Xill. 12, XIV. 37) xvi. 18. 

émOavaruios, iv. 9. 

émOupéw, x. 6. 

emtOvunrns, x. 6. 

em tKa€Q, i. 2. 

émikeypat, ix. 16. 

emipeve@, Xvi. 7, 8. 

emtaTony, v.19; XVI. 3, 

émirayn, vii. 6, 25. 

eTLTPETO, XIV. 34 XVi. Wea 

errorkodopee, | lil, JO, D2, TA. 

érroupavios, Xv. 40, 48, 49. 

epavvda, ll. 10. 

epyacopat, | 1Ve 12, 1x26, 13, Xvi er 

Epyov, lll. 13-15, Vv. 2, IX. I, XVe 50; 
XV1. IO. 

Epnpos, x. 5. 

Epis, i. 11, Iii. 3. 

éppnvia, xii. 10, xiv. 26, 

EPHNVEUTHS, xiv. 28? 

€pxopa, li. I, iv. 5, 18, 21, xi. 26, 
34, etc. 

ep@, xiv. 16, 23, Xv. 35. 

érbia, Vill. 7, IX. 4, 7, xi, 22- 

EvomTpov, Ki. U2: 

€oxaros, IVa, XVe One OWA GES os 

€o@, oi, V. 12. 

erepoyhoooos, x1V.2T. 

érepos, ill. 4, iv. 6, vi. 
Xv. 40, efc. 

@rt, ili. 2, 3, Xil. 31, XV. 17. 

éroupala, il. 9. 

evayyeAiCoua, i. 17, ix. 16, 18, 
EVS15 oe 

evayyuov, iv. 15, ix. 12, 14, 18, 
23, Xv. I. 

evyevis, 1. 26. 

edOoK Ew, I ie Ae et 

EUKALPED,. KVie Ts 

ethoyea, iv. 12, x. 16, xiv. 16. 

evAoyia, x. 16. 

evodoopat, Xvi. 2 

evpioKa, IV. 2, XV. 15. 

evonpos, XIV. 9. 

evo XNpOV@s, XIV. 40. 


2onetc: 


15%|,29 


418 


edo xnpoovrn, xii, 23. 

evoxnpor, vil. Shy xl. 24. 

evxapioTea, i - 4, 14, X. 30, xi. 24, 
xiv. 17, 18 

evxaptoria, xiv. 16. 

eparaé€, xv. 6. 

"Egegos, xv. 32, xvi. 8. 

€xOpos, XV. 25, 26. 

EXO, Vv. 1, Vi, ¥,-Vil. 2, 32, 29) etc. 

Eas, I. 8, xvi. 8. 

€ws ay, Iv. 5. 

€ws aprt, iv. 13, Vill. 7, Xv. 6. 


(a, vii. 39, Ix. 14, Xv. 45. 
(ros, iil. 3. 

(now, xi. 31, Xiil. 4, Xiv. 1, 39. 
(porns, K1Ve 2s 

Cnpioa, ill. 15. 

(nréa, 1. 22, Iv. 2, vil. 27, etc. 
Cupn, v. 6-8. 

(wn, ili. 22, xv. 19. 

(womroiew, XV. 22, 36, 45. 


ij) V- 10, II, Xi. 27, xiv. 6, etc. 
7) OUK oldaTe, Vi. 2, 9, 16, 19. 
76n, iv. 8, v. 3, Vi. 7- 
nOos, Xv. 33+ 
Wruos, xv. 4I. 
nHEpa, ili. 13, iv. 3, x. 8, Xv. 4, 31. 
npepa Tov Kupiov, i. 8, v. 5. 
joowr, xi, 17. 
ATTN HA, vi. 7. 
NX€@, Xili. I. 


dadacoa, x. I, 2. 
Oavaros, ili. 22, xi. 
54, 55, 56. 
Oanre, xv. 4. 
Oéarpoy, 1 Iv. 9. 
O€Anpa, 1. I, vil. 37, XVI. 12. 


26, xv. 21; 26, 


Géde, iv. 19, 21, vil. 7, 32, 36, xi. 3, | 


Rist S, XV 38, etc. 
Oeperwos, ili. 10, 11, 12. 
Geos, i. I I-4, 21, 27, 28, il. 10, iii. 6, 

9, 17; Viil. A "6, xi. 3, etc. 
Bepica, ix. 11. 

Onpiopaxéw, XV. 32. 
Onoavpia, Xvi. 2. 
OXius, vii. 28. 
Ovnros, XV. 53, 54- 
Odpa, xvi. 9. 

6uaia, x. 18. 








INDEXES 


Ovovacrnpiov, ix. 13, X. 18. 
dia, V.i75 X- 20. 


‘Idx wjos, mr ee 

iapa, xii. 9; 28, 30. 

idi@rns, Xiv. 16, 230 2A. 

idov, Xv. 5I. 

iepoOutos, x. 28. 

iepov, ix. 13. 

iepos, x.13: 

"TepovoaAnp, XVI. 3. 

‘Inaovs, 1. De xl 3, etc. 

no oe 1530, KV, 

iva, i. 27, 28, 31, 1V. 2, 3, V. 2 
vil. a xlil. 3, etc. 

iva HN; 1, LO; ES, 17 pete. 

iva Tily Xe 29. 

"IovOaior, i. 22-24, ix. 20, x. 32, 
Sis, 13 

‘Iopanr, x. 18. 

torn pts vil. 37, X- 12, XV. I. 

ioxupos, 1. 25, 27; Iv. IO, X. 22. 

ix dus, XV. 39. 


Kay, ll. I, 3, ili. I, vii. 8, 40, etc. 

xaOdrrep, X. IO, Xil. 12. 

KdOnpat, XIV. 30. 

xabifw, vi. 4. X. 7. 

Kabos, i. 6, 31,.1V. 175 V. Fy ete 

KaLv os, xi. 25- 

Kaupos, Iv. 5 Vii. 5, 29. 

kalo, xlll. 3 ?. 

kakeivos, x. 6. 

kakia, v. 8, xiv. 20. 

KakOS, X. 6, Mi, 5s XV 35. 

kaddpn, ill. 12. 

kadéw, 1. 9, Vii. 
XV. 9. 

xanos, v. 6, vii. 1, 8, 26, ix. 15. 

KdV, xlll. 2, 3- 

<apdia, | li. 9, iv. 5, Vii. 37, XIv. 25. 

kard C. £en., iv. 6, Xi. 4, XV. 15. 

katd C. cc., ii. I, iii. 8, vii. 6, 
xii. 8, 31, xv. 3, 31, etc. 

kara évOparor, i ill. 3, 1x. 8, Xv. 32. 

Kara odpxa, i. 26, x. 18. 
KatayyXo, li. I, 1X. 14, Xi. 26, 

KaTaurxvve, 1a 29 ee 5, 22. 

kaTakaia, ili, 15. 

KaTakadvTropat, xi: 6, 7; 

kardxeipat, Vill. 10. 


15, 17-24, x. 27, 


40, 


| KaTakpiva, Xi. 32. 


INDEXES 


KaradapBavea, ix. 24. 

kara\haoow, vil. II. 

KaTapév@, Xvi. 6?. 

KaravTaw, X. II, xiv. 36. 

KaTaTiva@, XV. 54. 

Karapyéa, 1. 28, ii. 6, vi. 13, xii. 8- 
II, Xv. 24, 26, 

karapri¢e, 1. 10; 

KaTAOTpoVvvUpat, X. 5. 

Katappovew, XI. 22. 

KaTaypdopat, Vil. 31, ix. 18. 

KarepydaCopuat, Vv. 3. 

KATEX@, vil. 30, Xl. 2, XV. 2. 

KaTnx€éw, XIV. 19. 

Kauxdouat, 1: 29, 31, ili. 21, 
Ril. 3c 

kavuxnpa, ¥. Opax, 15,10; 

KavXNOIs, Xv. 3I. 

Keipat, ill. II. 

Keipa, xi. 6. 

Kevos, XV. 10, 14, 58. 

KEvda, 1 is ix. 15. 

KévTpov, XV. 55, 56. 

kepdaive, ix. 19-22. 

kepahy, 1.95. 7, 10; Xil..2k 


KNMO®, IX. a 


LV 75 


Knpuyya, -2 is 4, xv. 14. 
KNPUTTW, i a ix. 27, XV. II, 12. 
Kngas, i. 12, lll. 22, 1x. 5, XV. 5. 


x.Odpa, Xiv. - 

xOapila, xiv. 7. 

xivOvvev@, XV. 30. 

kXala, Vil. 30. 

kAda, x. 16, xi. 24. 

kAémtns, Vi. 10. 

xAnpovopew, Vi. 9, 10, Xv. 50. 

KAjots, 1. 26, vil. 20. 

KAnros, i. I, 2, 24. 

Kowhia, vi. 13. 

Kouudopa, Vil. 39, Xi. 30, xv. 6, 
etc. 

Kotvwvia, 1. 9, X. 16. 

Kotv@vos, X. 18, 20. 

KOKKOS, XV. 37. 

codadila, iv. II. 

KohAdopat, Vi. 10,77, 

Konda, xi. 14, 15. 

KOHN, xi. 15. 

Komruda, iv. 12, XV. 

KOTos, {ile-O,0KVaSOe 

kopévvupat, iv. 8, 

KopivOos, i. 2. 


10, xvi. 16. 


419 


KOO 0S, i, 20, 27, ii, 12, ili. 19, iv. 9, 
v. 10, etc. 

Kparawona, XVl. 13. 

K peas, Vill. 13. 

Kpeiooor, Vil. 38, xi. 17. 

Kpeirrov, Vil. 9. 

Kpipa, Wale Gia 3 29, 34. 

Kplva, lic 2, iv. Ge ves Su oVt. 
XK 15,20, Xi. 97, etc: 

Kpiomos, i. 14. 

KpumTos, iV. 5, Xiv. 25. 

KTNVOS, XV. 39. 

KTiC@, XI. 9. 

KuBépvnacs, xil. 28. 

KvpBanroy, Xili. 1. 

Kuplak ds, Xi. 20, 
Spies 1:31; Iv. 4, Vil. 22, 39, 1x Ty 
2, x1. II, xii. 3, xv. 58, xvi. 10. 
Kupuos, 6, il. 8, ili. 5, iv. 5, 19, vi. 13, 
14) 17; Vilo 10, 12, 17, 952,/1eegs 
etc. 

Kupwos "Iyoous Kpuoros, 12,47 
Vie DD, Ville; XVn5 7: 

KUpLOS, viii. 5. 

KwAU@, XiV. 39. 


I-3, 


Naré@, ii. 6, ill. I, ix. 8, xii. 3, 30, 
Xlll. I, Xiv. 2-6, etc. 

Aap Barve, il. 12, ill. 8, iv. 7, ix. 24, 
Xo 13, Xl. 23).etc, 

Aads, X. 7, Xiv. 21. 

Aéyw, i. 10, 12, iil. 4, vill. 5, etc. 

AiOos, ili. 12. 


Adyos, i. 5, 17, il. I, 13, iv. 20, xii. 
8, xiv. 9, 19, Xv. 2. 
Acyos, 6, 1. 19, li. 4, iv. 19, xiv. 36, 


XV. $4. 
Aowopéw, iv. 12. 


Aoidopos, Vv. 11, Vi. TO. 

Aourrdy, i. 16, iv. 2, vii. 29. 

Aout os, ViL..92, 1x. 5,°x1.) 94, ave 47. 
Avors, Vii. 27. 

Ava, Vil. 27. 


paivopa, XIV. 23. 

pakapwos, Vil. 40. 

Makedovia, Xvl. 5. 

pdkeddor, X. 25. 

pak poOvpeéa, Xiil. 4. 

padakos, Vi. 9. 

paddor, Vv. 2, vi. 7, Vil. 21, 1x. 12, 
15, etc. 


420 


pavOave, i iV. Gy XIV. 81,: 35. 

Mapay aba, xvi. 22. 

paptupéw, Xv. 5. 

Haprupioy, i. 6, li. 1? 

paras, ili. 20, XV. 17. 

peéyas, ix, ik, Xvi 9. 

pe@ordva, Xiil. 2. 

péBvaos, V. II, vi. 10. 

pedio, 3.21. 

peiCwv, xii. 31, xiii. 13, xiv. 5. 

péAet, Vil. 21, 1x. 9. 

HEARG, ili. 22. 

uéXos, Wie 35, Xi, 12) 04, Cte: 

plow, 1. 12, 18, Mi, Ay Ve Byes ee 
etc. 

pev obv, vi. 4, 7: 

péva, ill. 14, vii. 8, 20, xiii. 13, etc. 

pepila, 1. 13, Vile 17; 34. 

HEpipvda, Vil. 32-34, xll. 25. 

#épos, xi. 18, xii. 27, xili. 9-12, xiv. 
27- 

HéTOS, V. 2, Vi. 5. 


pera ¢. gen., vi. 6, 7, Vii. 12, etc. 
perd C. acc. Xi. 25. 
peTaoxnpariCa, iv. 6. 

perexa, ix. 10, 12, X. 17, 21, 30. 


BN, ls 7 135 28, 1V0 5) 1G; Vi 9, etc. 


BN, ov, Vill. 13. 
pndoé, v. 8, II, xX. 7-10. 


pndeis, i. , lil. 18, 21, etc, 
pnvie, x 25. 
BITLYE, vi. 3. 
pikpos, V 
pupntns, iv. 16, xi. I. 
pipvngopat, Xi. 2. 
peo Bos, 1 lil. 8, 14, ix. 17, 18. 
poLxos, Vi. 9: 
pohuve, vill. 7. 
pévov, Vil. 39, Xv. 19. 
pSvos, ix. 6, xiv. 36. 
pupios, iv. Pee a 19. 
puoTn pov, il. cp 75 iv. I, xiii. 2; 
XIV. 2, XV. of 
pepaive, 1. 20. 
popia, i. 18, 21, 23, il. 14, ili. 19. 
peopos, i. 25, 27, lil. 18, iv. 10, 
Mavo7js, ix, 9, X. 12. 


vads, ili. 16, 17, vi. 19. 
vekpol, XV. 12-52. 
VEOS, V. 7. 

veéeAn, xX. I, 2. 


INDEXES 


vn, XV. 3%. 

vnmiatw, Xiv. 20, 

vn) Los, ili. I, Xili. 

vikos, XV. 54-57. 

vonife, vil. 26, 36. 

vdpos, ix. 8, 9, 20, xiv. 23, 34, 
xv. 56. 

vovOegia, x. II. 

vouberéw, iv. 14. 

vous, i. 10, li. 16, Xiv. 14 14, 19. 

viv, ill, 2, V. II, vil. 14, etc. 

vuvi, Xill, 13, XV. 20, xil. 18? 

vvé, Xi. 23. 


EvXoy, iii. 12. 
Evpdopat, xi. 5, 6. 


680s, 1 LV, £7; S11, 31, 


oida, i. 16, ii. 2, 11, 12, vii. 16, 
Vill. I, 4, Xi. 3, etc. 

oidare, iii. 16, v. 6, Vi. 3; Flea das 
24, Xil, 2, Xvi. 15; See @ Gum 


oldare, 

oixéa, lil. 16, Vil. 12, 13. 

oixobopéw, Vili. I, 10, X. 23, XiV. 4. 
17. 

oixodopn, i lil. 9, Xiv. 3, 5, 12, 26. 

oixovopia, ix, 17. 

oikovdpos, iv. I, 2. 

oikos, i. 16, xvi. 19. 

oika@, €v, Xi. 34, XIV. 35. 

otos, xv. 48. 

6A€Opos, Vv. 5. 

dAoOpeuTns, X. 10, 

Ordos, v. 6, xil. 17, Xiv. 23. 

OAs, V. I, Vi. 7, Xv. 28. 

épiria, XV. 33: 

dpoias, vii. 3, 4, 22. 

Spws, xiv. 7. 

évopa, i. 2, 10, 13, 15, V. 4, vi. 11 

dvouata, v. II. 

dvTws, XIV. 25. 

drroios, ili. 13. 

drrov, lil. 3: 

Srrws, i. 29. 

épda, ix. I, xv. 5-8. 

Gpos, xiii. 2. 

ds peév, xi. 21, xii. 8, 28. 

dodxis, xi. 25, 26. 

Soos, ii. os vil. 39. 

doris, iii. 17, Vv. 1, vil. 13, XVi. 2 


dopnats, xii. 7. 


INDEXES 


Srav, ili. 4, Xili. 10, xiv. 26, etc. 

ore, xil. 2; xill. IT. 

ors, i, 55 Il, 12, 14, etc. 

ob, XVi. 

oval, 1X. 16. 

Guede, yO, WA. 2, 1V.,:3, Ver Takis 34, 
lc. 

ovdeis, il. 8, ill, II, vill. 4, etc. 

ovderore, xiii. 8. 

over, xiii. 2, 3. 

ov, ill. 5, Vi. 4, 7, Vii. 
Xiv. 15, etc. 

ore, lil. 2, vill. 2. 

ovpavds, Vill. 5, Xv. 47. 

ous, ii. 9, Xil. 16. 

obre, ili. 7p Vig 9, Vill. (5, x1 1. 

obros, vii. 13, vill. 3: 

ovTas, il. II, iil. 15, 1 
5 vil. 17, etc. 

ovxt, i. 20, ill. 3, V. 2, 12, etc. 

oped, Vil. 3- 

dpeida, V. 10, vil. 36, ix. 10, xi. 7, 
10. 

dpedor, iv. 8. 

oedos, XV. 32. 

éPOadpés, ii. 9, xii. 16, 17, 21, xv. 
§2; 

ddus, x. 9. 


owevioy, ix. 7. 


26, x. 19, 


By Vio Revi: 


madaywyos, iv. 15. 

matdev@, Xi. 32. 

matdiov, XiV. 20. 

mailw, X. 7. 

manaw0s, V. 7, 8. 

way, 1 iil. 20, Vil. 5, Xii. 21. 

mavoupyia, iil. 19. 

mavTaxou, iv. 17. 

mavTore, 1. 4, xv. 58. 

mdvT@s, V. 10, ix. 10, 22, xvi. 12. 

mapa c. dat., iii. 19, vil. 24, xvi. 2. 

mapa C. ACC, ill. 11, Xil. 15, 16. 

mapayyéeAho, Vii. 10, KT, 

mapayivopat, XVI, 3. 

Tapaye, vu. 31. 

mapadidam, Vv. 5, Xi. 2, 23, xiii. 3, 
XV. 3, 24. 

mapadoats, Xi. 2. 

mapatndda, X. 22. 

mapaxahéw, i. 10, iv. 13, 16, xiv. 31, 
Xvi. 12, 15. 

rapdkAnots, XiV. 3. 


421 


mapahapBave, xi, 23, XV. I, 3. 

Tapapeva, xvi. 6? 

mapapvOia, XIV. 3. 

mapackevata, xiv. 8. 

mapariOnpt, x. 27. 

mapaxepace, xvi. 6, 

mapedpevar, I 1X53 

T Apel, V. 3. 

mapOévos, Vii. 25-38. 

mapiotnpt, Vill. 8. 

mapodos, Xvi. 7. 

mapo€vvopat, xiii. 5. 

m@apovgia, XV. 23, XVi. 17. 

HUG, 1,125) 55°20) 1K. 10, xi. 2)xiv. 3Y, 
Xv. 10, 275/59; ete: 

mdoxa, Vv. 7: 

mTaoxX@, xii. 26. 

Tarnp, 1. 3, Vili.v6, XV. 24: 

TaTnp, NG DUG I Bl Ic 

Tavdos, i Weel, 12; il. 45-22, Vi eae 

Tavopat, xill. 8, 

TeLvaw, iV. II, x4. 21, 34. 

meipara, Vil. 5, Oe 13. 

TELpag LOS, xX. 13. 

Wépmw, iV. 17, XV. 3. 

mevOéa, Vv. 2. 

TevTakoovol, Xv. 6. 

TEVTE, XIV. 19. 

Tlevrnxoorn, xvi. 8. 

TeEpt C. fen, 1. 4, 18; .13.?,Vile W377, 
viii. I, Xli. I, etc. 

mepidye, 1X Ge 

mepu3odaiov, Xi. 15. 

mepixabappa, i Iv. 13. 

mepiTrarew, ill. 32 Vile re 

Tepiroever, vill. 8, xiv. 12, xv. 58. 

TEpLooorepos, Xil, 23, XV. 10. 

mepiréuva, Vii. 18, 

mepiTiOnpe, xi. 23: 

TepiTopn, Vii. 19. 

mepivypa, | Iv. 13. 

MepTrepevopuat, Xlll. 4. 

MET pa, X. 4. 

mos, i li. 4. 

miva@, 1X. 4, X. 4, 7, 21, 31, xi. 
25, etc. 

Tinto, x. 8, 12, xiii. 8, xiv. 25: 

MioTEVW, 1. 21, 1X. 17, Xi. 18, xili. 7, 
Val 2euGs 

WioTis, li. 5, Xii. 9, Xili. 2, 13, XV. 14, 
47; XVi. 13. . 

mtaTos, i. 9, iV. 2, 17, Vil. 25, X. 13. 


22, 


422 


mavde, Vi. 9, XV. 33. 
metorov, TO, xiv. 27. 
meiwv, iX. 19, x. 5, xv. 6. 
mheovextns, V. 10, II, Vi. 10. 
mAny, Xi: 1%. 

mAnpopa, x. 26. 

mouréa, iv. 8. 

movTiva, i Teds 


mvevpa, il. 4, 13, iv. 21, xii. 10, 13, 
xiv. 2, I2- “3 XV. 45. 
Tv. Ge0i, Mil, Asi. 16, Vie BY; 


Vii. 40, Xii. a 

mv. dyiov, Vi. 19, Xil. 3. 

mvevpa... odp&, capa, V. 3, 5, 
Vi. 17, Vil. 34, xii. 13. 

MVEVPLATLKOS, ll. 13, 15, ili. I, 1X. IT, 
X. 3, Xii. I, xv. 44, etc. 

mvevparik@s, li. 13, 14. 

mow, Vi. 15, 18, vil. 36-38, xi. 24, 
XV. 29, etc. 

Totpaive, 1x7. 

moipvyn, 1x, (7. . 

Tots, XV. 35. 

mode pos, xiv. 8. 

modus, 1. 26, iv. 15, Vili. 5, X- 17, 
Mil. 12; XVI. 12, etc: 

mpd, X. 4. 

movnpos, V. 13. 

mopeveauu, X. 27; XVI. 4, 6. 

Topveia, Vi Ey Vi. 03, 1S, val. 2. 

mopveva, vi. 18, xo: 

™ Opyn, vl. 15, 16. 

mopvos, Vv. 9-11, vi. 9. 

moré, 1x. 76 

mornptov, x. 16, 21, xi. 25-28. 

moriva, iil. 2- 8, xii. 13. 

TO}, 1. 20;°Xil. B75 TO, xv. 5S: 


Tous, xll. 15, 21, XV. 25, 27. 
m™payya, Vic Ts 
mpagow, V . 2, 1X. 17. 


mpavrns, lv. 21, 

™peT@, xi. 3- 

Tpioxa, XV. 19. 

po, ll. 7; iv. 5. 

mpodap Bava, Xi. 21, 

mpoopiCa, il. 7. 

TpomeuTra, xvi. 6, 11. 

Tm pos C. aCC., ii: E; 3; Vi. 
<i1.°2, Xvi. 6, etc. 

™ poveuxt, vil. 5 

TpooevxXopat, Xl. 4, 13, XIV. 13-15. 

mpdckoupa, Vill. 9. 


1, 5) Vibe Ss 


INDEXES 


7 pooKuvéw, XiV. 25. 

m podnreia, Xi. 10, xiil, 2, 8, xiv. 6, 22. 
mpopyrevo, yr FY. baie 84 9, xiv. I-39. 
mpodnrns, xii. 28, 29, xiv. 29, 32, 37. 
™ parov, xi. 18, xii. 28, XV. 46. 

7 pOTOS, XIV. 30, Xv. 3, 45, 47- 
mTNvOos, XV. 39. 

TUKTEVO, ix. 26. 

mUP, ili. 13, 15. 

mupoopat, Vii. 9. 

TwA€w, X. 25. 

W@s, ill. 10, Vil. 32, 34, etc. 


paBsos, iv. 21. 
pin, XV. 52. 


oaSBarou, xara piav, xvi. 2. 

odAmyé, xiv. 8, xv. 52. 

varriva, <V, 52s 

TapKixos, ill. eb sp aS 

TapKwos, itsare 

aapé, i. 26, 29, v. 5, vi. 16, vii. 28, 
x. 18, Xv. 39, 50. 

Zaravas, Vv. 5, Vil. 5. 

oeAnvn, XV. 41. 

avydw, xiv. 28, 30, 34. 

giros, XV. 37. 

oxavdarila, vill. 13. 

axdvSanoy, i. 23. 

oKOTos, iv. 5- 


copia, 1. 17-24, 30, il. I-7, 13, 
lil. 19, xii. 8. 

coos, 1. 19-27, ili. 10-20, vi. 5. 

oreip@, IX. II, XV. 36-44. 

oméppa, xv. 38. 

ordaduov, 1X. 24. 

araupos, ES y het 

oravpow i. ths 23; il. 2, 8. 

OTEya, ix. 12, xlll. 7: 

Sreavas, i. 16, XVi. IG, Ga 

arepavos, i 1x. 25. 

OTNKw, Xvi. 13. 

ae ae 1557, 

ov, xiv. 17, xv. 36. 

on, vii. 35, S83 

Tippavos, Vii. 5. 

ouv, 1,25 'X. 13, eve, LOL CEG. 

guvaya, Vv. 4. 

nr Me v. 9, II. 

avy BiBala, i il. 16. 

ovvyvepn, Vil. . 

ovveidnats, Vill. 7, 10, 12. 


INDEXES 423 


ouvépxopat, xi. 17-20, 33, 34, Xiv. | TumiKa@s, x. IT. 


23, 26. TUTot, x. 6. 
cvverGia, Vv. II. rUTT@, Vill. 12. 
oiveats, i. 19. 
ouveros, 1. 19. vios, é, 1. 9, xv. 28. 
auvevdoKéew, Ga — 13: bperepos, Vor Sleeve Veh 
our dntnTns, i. Umapxa, vil. 26, xi. 7, 18, xii. 22, 
ovv7Oeca, viii. = xi. 16. xill. ae 
ouvKepavvupt, X11. 24. tmép ¢. gen., 1. 137, iv. 6, x. 30, 
gvvKolvavos, 1X. 23. Xl. 24, X11. 25, XV. 3, 29. 
ovvKpiva, li. 13. Umép ¢. ace., iv. 6, x. 13. 
TuvpepiCopar, ix. 13. tm épaxpos, vil. 36. 
oivowda, i iv. 4. bmepBorr, | Silo are 
ouvmdaxa, xil. 26. Umepoxn, li. I. 
TVVOTEA®, Vil. 29. imnperns, iv: J. 
ovvxaipa, xii. 26, xiii. 6. Und C. GlC.5 X. 1, XV: 25, 27: 
oppayis, i 1X; 25 imo vopov, IX. 20. 
7xXnHA, Vil. 31. UmToTaoCo, XIV. 32, 34, XV. 27, 28, 
oxiopa, i. 10, xi. 18, xii. 25. xvi. 16, 
axorag@, vil. 5. uropepa, X. 13. 


Toe, 1. 18, 21, ill. 15, v. 5, Vil. 16, etc. bramuica, | 1X. 27. 

o@pa, V. 3, Vi. 13-20, Vil. 4, 1X. 27, doTEpew, 1. 7, Vill. 8, xil. 24. 
x. 16, 17, Xi. 24-29, xll. 12-27, | borépnya, xvi. 17. 
XV. 35, etc. 


Swobevns, i. I. avepos, ill. 13, xi. 19, xiv. 25. 
pavepow, iv. 5. 
Taypa, XV. 23. pavépwors, Xi. 7. 
rakes, XIV. 40. petSopar, vii. 28. 
Tdoow, XVI. 5. evyo, vi. 18, x. 14. 
Taxéws, iv. 19. pnpi, Vil. 29, X. 15, 10, xv. 50, 
TéXevos, il. 6, xill. 10, Xiv. 20. gyno, vi. 16. 
TéRos, i iG, 35,15, 2Ve2A- POapros, ix. 25, XV. 53, 54. 
THpEw, Vil. 37. POeipa, ili. 17, XV. 33- 
THpHOLS, vil. 19. pOdoyyos, Xiv. 7. 
TYAN, Vi. 20, vii. 23, xll. 23, 24. pOopa, XV. 42, 50. 
Tipuos, ill. 12. iréo, Xvi. 22. 
Typdbeos, iv. 17, xvi. 10. pirnpa, xvi. 20. 
Ti ovv, ili. 5, X. 19, xiv. 15, 26. prroverkos, xi. 16, 
Tl eat, X. 19. pusoa, ix. 9?. 
Tolvuv, 1x. 26. PoBos, il. 3. 
TowovTos, V. I, 5, IT, vil. 15, xv. 48, | popéw, xv. 49. 
etc. oprovvaros, XVi. We 
Tohya, Vi. I, pny, xiv. 20. 
TOmos, hb 2; Rive 16 ppovea, xiil. II. 
pda iv. 5, xili. 12, xv. 28, 54,| @pdvepos, iv. 10, x. 15. 
2: pipapa, v. 6, 7. 
sete %. 2%, pvowow, iv. 6, 18, 19, v. 2, vill. I, 
Tpeis, SO, sisi. 15, My. 27,205 xill. 4. 
TPEX®, ix. 24, 26. vars, xi. 14. 
Tpirn, T. Nuepa T., XV. 4. gureva, ill. 6-8, ix. 7. 
TpOpos, li. 3. dwvn, xiv. 7-11. 


Tuyxav@, XIV, 10, xv. 37, xvi. 6. pwrifa, iv. 5. 


424 


xaipa, Vii. 30, xiil. 6, xvi. 17. 

XaAkos, XU als 

xapiCopar, Hs, 12. 

xapis, 1. 3) X- 30; XV. 57; XVI. 3. 

xapis Gcod, i. 4) ili. 10, Xv. 10, 

xapis T. Kupiou_ ‘Ingov, XVI. 23. 

xapiopa, i. 7, Vil. 7, Xil. 4, 9, 28-31. 

xethos, XIV. 21. 

xetp, iv. 12, xii. 

xnpa, vii. 8. 

xruas, x. 8. 

XAon, i. 11 

xotkds, XV. 47-49. 

xpos, ill. 12. 

xpdopat, Vil. 21, 31, ix. 12, 15. 

xpeta, xii. 21, 24. 

Xpnorevoua, xiii. 4. 

XPnOT OS, XV. 33- 

Xptoros, ib Lae 13, 17, 23, 24; MealOs 
iV. I, 10, V- 7, V1-.F5, Vil. 22, etc; 
see ev XpioTo. 


Wh, i215 RV Ee 


Xptoros "Ingois, i. I, 4, 30, iv. 15, 
vill. 6, XV. 31; XVi. 24. 
Kpirros, 0, 1. G6, 13, 17; Vi. 15; 





INDEXES 


ix, T2, Ko 4-0; TOS aaa ee 
XV. 22, 23. 

xpdvos, vii. 39, Xvi. 7. 

xpuaiov, hot) 

xwolw, vil. 10, II, 15. 

xwpis, iv. 8, xi. II. 


| Wadpos, xiv. 26. 


Weudopaptus, xv. 15. 
iti s. Le 

Wuyekos, il. 14, xv. 44, 46. 
Wopita, xill. 3. 


ode, iv. 2. 

@pa, iv. II, Xv. 30. 

@S, ill. I, 5, 10, 15, iv. I, 7, 9, etc. 

@s ay, Xi. 34. 

oats, x1. 25- 

@OTEp, Vill. 5, X. 7, Xi. 12, XV. 22, 
Xvi. I. 

@omepel, xv. 8. 

Gore, ill. 7, v. 1, 8, vil. 38, etc. 

Gore py, i. 7; lil. 21, iv. 5, etc. 

aped€a, Xiil. 3, Xiv. 6. 


INDEX III. LATIN AND ENGLISH WORDS. 


Caritas, 286. 

cella, 66. 
communicatio, 212. 
conspersio, 102. 
contemptibiles, 114. 
dilectio, 286. 
exitus, 209. 

exlex, 192. 
exterminator, 206. 
gloriatio, Io. 
ignoratio, 364. 
inflatio, 91. 

inlex, 192. 

intacta, 132. 
libertus, 148. 
lustramina, 88. 
macellum, 220. 
malitia, 103. 
nequitia, 103. 


offendiculum, 171. 
participatio, 212. 
percussor, 206. 
peritus, 60. 
piacula, 88. 
vastator, 206, 


and if, 153. 

by, 77. 
carefulness, 156. 
convince, 318. 
daysman, 76. 
hamper, 186. 
inherit, 375. 

of, 318. 

other (plural), 322. 
pursuivant, 57. 
underling, 74. 


The 
International Critical Commentary 


VOLUMES NOW READY 


Numbers. By the Rev. G. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Mansfield College, Oxford. 


“Most Bible readers have the impression that ‘Numbers’ is a dull 
book only relieved by the brilliancy of the Balaam chapters and some 
snatches of old Hebrew songs, but, as Prof. Gray shows with admirable 
skill and insight, its historical and religious value is not that which lies 
on the surface. Prof. Gray’s Commentary is distinguished by fine 
scholarship and sanity of judgment; it is impossible to commend it too 
warmly.”—Saturday Review (London). 

Crown 8vo. $3.00 net. 





Deuteronomy. By the Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 


“Tt is a pleasure to see at last a really critical Old Testament com- 
mentary in English upon a portion of the Pentateuch, and especially 
one of such merit. ‘This I find superior to any other Commentary in 
any language upon Deuteronomy.” 

Professor E. L. Curtis, of Yale University. 


Crown 8vo. $3.00 net. 


Judges. By Rev. Grorce Foor Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
Theology in Harvard University. 


“The work is done in an atmosphere of scholarly interest and in- 
difference to dogmatism and controversy, which is at least refreshing. 
...It is a noble introduction to the moral forces, ideas and influences 
that controlled the period of the Judges, and a model of what a 
historical commentary, with a practical end in view, should be.” 
—The Independent. 


Crown 8vo. $3.00 net. 





The Books of Samuel. By Rev. HENRY PRESERVED SmiTH, D.D., 
Professor of Old Testament Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. 


“ Professor Smith’s Commentary will for some time be the standard 
work on Samuel, and we heartily congratulate him on scholarly work 
so faithfully accomplished.”—The Atheneum. 

Crown 8vo. $3.00 neé. 


THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 





VOLUMES NOW READY 


The Book of Psalms. By Cuaries Atcustus Briccs, J.D., 
D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolies, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Emitrz Grace Briccs, B.D. 


“Christian scholarship seems here to have reached the highest level yet 
attained in study of the book which in religious importance stands next 
to the Gospels. His work upon it is not likely to be excelled in learning, 
both massive and minute, by any volume of the International Series, to 
which it belongs.” —The Outlook. 


2 Volumes. Crown 8yo. Price, $3.00 each net. 


Proverbs. By the Rev. Crawrorp H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
Hebrew in Harvard University. 


“This volume has the same characteristics of thoroughness and pains- 
taking scholarship as the preceding issues of the series. In the critical 
treatment of the text, in noting the various readings and the force of 
the words in the original Hebrew, it leaves nothing to be desired. 


Crown 8yo. $3.00 net. 





Amos and Hosea. By WittiaAm RarNey Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., 
late Professor of Semitic Languages and Literature and President of the 
University of Chicago. 


“He has gone, with characteristic minuteness, not only into the analysis 
and discussion of each point, endeavoring in every case to be thoroughly 
exhaustive, but also into the history of exegesis and discussion. Nothing 
at all worthy of consideration has been passed by. The consequence is 
that when one carefully studies what has been brought together in this 
volume, either upon some passage of the two prophets treated, or upon 
some question of critical or antiquarian importance in the introductory 
portion of the volume, one feels that he has obtained an adequately 
exhaustive view of the subject.” —The Interior. 


Crown 8vo. $3.00 net. 





Esther. By L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartford 
Theological Seminary. 


This scholarly and critical commentary on the Book of Esther presents 
in full the remarkable additions to the Massoretic text and the varia- 
tions in the various versions beginning with the Greek translation and 
continuing through the Vulgate and Peshitto down to the Talmud and 
Targums. These are not given in full in any other commentary, yet 
they are very important both for the history of the text and the history 
of the exegesis. 

, Crown 8vo. $2.25 net. 


THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 





VOLUMES NOW READY 


Ecclesiastes. By Grorcr A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical 
Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. 


“Tt is a relief to find a commentator on Ecclesiastes who is not en- 
deavoring to defend some new theory. This volume, in the International 
Commentary series, treats the book in a scholarly and sensible fashion, 
presenting the conclusions of earlier scholars together with the author’s 
own, and providing thus all the information that any student needs.” 

—The Congregationalist. 


Crown 8vo. $2.25 net. 


St. Matthew. By the Rev. WmtovcHsy C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow 
of Exeter College, Oxford. 


“As a microscopic and practically exhaustive study and itemized state- 
ment of the probable or possible sources of the Synoptic Gospels and 
of their relations, one to another, this work has not been surpassed. 
I doubt if it has been equaled. And the author is not by any means 
lacking in spiritual insight.”—The Methodist Review (Nashville). 
Crown 8vo. $3.00 net. 


SL. Mark. By the Rey. E. P. Goutp, D.D., sometime Professor of New 
Testament Exegesis, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 


“The whole make-up is that of a thoroughly helpful, instructive critical 
study of the Word, surpassing anything of the kind ever attempted in 
the English language, and to students and clergymen knowing the 
proper use of a commentary it will prove an invaluable aid.” 

—The Lutheran Quarterly. 


Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 


St: Luke. By the Rev. ALFRED PLuMMER, D.D., sometime Master of 
University College, Durham. 


“We are pleased with the thoroughness and scientific accuracy of the 
interpretations. ... It seems to us that the prevailing characteristic of 
the book is common sense, fortified by learning and piety.” 

—The Herald and Presbyter. 


Crown 8vo. $3.00 net. 


Romans. By the Rev. Witt1am Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret 
Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. 
A. C. Heapiam, M.A., D.D., Principal of Kings College, London. 


“We do not hesitate to commend this as the best commentary on Romans 
yet written in English. It will do much to popularize this admirable 
and much needed series, by showing that it is possible to be critical and 
scholarly and at the same time devout and spiritual, and intelligible to 
plain Bible readers.”—The Church Standard. 

Crown 8vo. $3.90 net. 


THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 





VOLUMES NOW READY 


Ephesians and Colossians. by the Rev. T. K. Assorr, D.D., 
D.Litt., formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, now of Hebrew, Trinity Col- 
lege, Dublin. 
“An able and independent piece of exegesis, and one that none of us can 
afford to be without. It is the work of a man who has made himself 
master of this theme. His exegetical perceptions are keen, and we are 


especially grateful for his strong defense of the integrity and apostolicity 
of these two great monuments of Pauline teaching.” —The Expositor. 


Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 


Philippians and Philemon. By Rev. Marvy R. Vincent, D.D., 
Professor of Biblical Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


‘Professor Vincent’s Commentary appears to me not less admirable for 
its literary merit than for its scholarship and its clear and discriminating 
discussions of the contents of these Epistles.”—-Dr. GEorGE P. FIsHER. 


Crown 8yvo. $2.00 net. 





St. Peter and St. Jude. By the Rev. CuHaries Bicc, D.D., 
sometime Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University, 
New York. 


“The careful and thorough student will find here a vast amount of in- 
formation most helpful to him in his studies and researches. The inter- 
national Critical Commentary, to which it belongs, will prove a great 
boen to students and ministers.” —The Canadian Congregationalist. 


Crown fiyo. $4.50 met. 


Genesis. By the Rev. JoHN Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor of 
Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church 
of England, Cambridge, England. 


“Exact scholarship, a scientific temper of mind, and the reverence of 
a believer in Divine revelation combine to render Principal Skinner 
an ideal commentator on the Book of Genesis. The work before us 
will unquestionably take its place in the very front rank of modern Old 
Testament commentaries. We can award it no higher praise than to 
say that it need not shrink from comparison with what has hitherto 
been facile princeps in the series to which it belongs—Driver’s Deu- 
teronomy.”—Rey. J. A. SELBIE, D.D., in The Expository Times. 


Crown 8vo, $3.00 met 


THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 





The Books of Chronicles. By the Rev. Epwarp L. Curtis, 


Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, and Rev. ALBERT A. 
MapseEn, Ph.D. 


“The Commentary deserves unstinted praise, and will be found of 
extreme value by all who are interested in this late constituent of the 
Canon, which possesses so much interest alike from the literary and 
the religious stand-point. Dr. Curtis has supplied the English-speaking 
student of the Old Testament with precisely the work he required.” 
—Reyv. J. A. SELBIE, D.D., in The Expository Times. 


Crown 8vo. $3.00 net (Postage additional). 












—teg © a 


. ‘era AT) ice 


me, rr. ~~ 

b- , aa? 7 ; 
ye As im ~ Pet GZ we > = 

is Ponty yey v4 CL 


4 ie are “eo 
@ pr Si. |} =°y_fe ae = 
a 


a7 7 oie UE q re wal 


tt thee 0 3 errr an, & « 





The International 
Theological Library 


EDITORS’ PREFACE 


HEOLOGY has made great and rapid advances 

in recent years. New lines of investigation have 
been opened up, fresh light has been cast upon 
many subjects of the deepest interest, and the historical 
method has been applied with important results. This 
has prepared the way for a Library of Theological 
Science, and has created the demand for it. It has also 
made it at once opportune and practicable now to se- 
cure the services of specialists in the different depart- 
ments of Theology, and to associate them in an enter- 
prise which will furnish a record of Theological 
inquiry up to date. 


This Library is designed to cover the whole field of 
Christian Theology. Each volume is to be complete 
in itself, while, at the same time, it will form part of a 
carefully planned whole. One of the Editors is to pre- 
pare a volume of Theological Encyclopedia which will 
give the history and literature of each department, as 
well as of Theology as a whole. 


THE INTERNATIONAL THROLOGICAL LIBRARY 


The Library is intended to form a series of Text. 
Books for Students of Theology. 


The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and com- 
pactness of statement. At the same time, they have in 
view that large and increasing class of students, in other 
departments of inquiry, who desire to have a systematic 
and thorough exposition of Theological Science. Tech- 
nical matters will therefore be thrown into the form of 
notes, and the text will be made as readable and attract- 
ive as possible. 


The Library is international and interconfessional. It 
will be conducted in a catholic spirit, and in the 
interests of Theology as a science. 


Its aim will be to give full and impartial statements 
both of the results of Theological Science and of ‘he 
questions which are still at issue in the different 
departments. 


The Authors will be scholars of recognized reputation 
in the several branches of study assigned tothem. They 
will be associated with each other and with the Editors 
in the effort to provide a series of volumes which may 
adequately represent the present condition of investi- 
gation, and indicate the way for further progress. 


CHARLES A. BRIGGS 
STEWART D. F. SALMOND 


THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY 





ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS 


THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPADIA. By CuHarizs A. Bricos, D.D., 
D.Litt., Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union 
Theological Seminary, New York. 


AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTA- 
MENT. By S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew 
and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. 


CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
[Author to be announced later. 


OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By HENRY PRESERVED SmiTH, D.D., 
Professor of Old Testament Literature, Meadville, Pa. [Now Ready. 


CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By 
Francis Brown, D.D., LL.D., D.Litt., President and Professor of 
Hebrew, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By A.B. Davipson, D.D., 
LL.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh. 
hae Ready. 


AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTA- 
MENT. By Rev. JAMES Morratt, B.D., Minister United Free Church, 
Broughty Ferry, Scotland. [Now Ready. 


CANON AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Caspar RENE 
Grecory, D.D., LL.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the 
University of Leipzig. [Now Ready. 


THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By WiLtiamM Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 


A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By 
ARTHUR C. McGIFFERT, D.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theo- 
logical Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. 


CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By 
FRANK C. PorTER, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology, Yale University, 
New Haven, Conn. 


THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By GeorceE B. STEVENS, 
D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New 
Haven, Conn. [Now Ready. 


BIBLICAL ARCHAOLOGY. By G. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor 
of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. 


THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH. By Rosert Rainy, D.D., 
LL.D., sometime Principal of New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready. 


THE LATIN CHURCH FROM GREGORY THE GREAT TO THE 
COUNCIL OF TRENT. [Author to be announced later. 


THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY 





THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES. By W. F. Apeney, D.D., 
Principal of Independent College, Manchester. [Now Ready. 


THE REFORMATION. By T. M. Linpsay, D.D., Principal of the United 
Free College, Glasgow. {2 vols. Now Ready. 


CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN COUNTRIES SINCE THE COUNCIL OF 
TRENT. By Pavt SasatieEr, D.Litt., Drome, France. 


SYMBOLICS. By CHARLES A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Professor of 
Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York. 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By G. P. FisHer, D.D., 
LL.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, 
New Haven, Conn. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. 


CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. By A. V. G. ALLEN, D.D., sometime 
Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, 
Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. 


PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. By GEORGE GALLAWAY, D.D., Minister 
of United Free Church, Castle Douglas, Scotland. 


THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. By Georcs F. Moorg, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor in Harvard University. 


APOLOGETICS. By A. B. Bruceg, D.D., sometime Professor of New 


Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. 
[Revised and Enlarged Edition, 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. By WriirramM N. CrarxgE, D. D., 


Professor of Systematic Theology, Hamilton Theological Seminary. 
[Now Ready. 


THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. By WILLIAM P. PATERSON, D.D., Professer 
of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. 


THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. By H.R. MackinTosu, Ph.D., Professor 
of Systematic Theology, New College, Edinburgh. 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. By Grorcre B. Str- 


VENS, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University. 
[New Ready. 


THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. By WILLIAM ADAMS 
Brown, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 


CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By NgEwMAN SmyTH, D.D., Pastor of Congrege- 
tional Church, New Haven. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. 


THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE WORKING CHURCH. 
WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., Pastor of Congregational Church, Columbus, 
Ohio. [Now Ready. 


THE CHRISTIAN PREACHER. By A. E. Garvie, D.D., Principal of 
New College, London, England. 


Ee OTHER VOLUMES WILL BE ANNOUNCED LATER. 


The International Theological Library 


VOLUMES NOW READY 


An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa- 
ment. By Professor S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt. 


“As a whole there is probably no book in the English Language equal 
to this ‘Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,’ for the 
student who desires to understand what the modern criticism thinks 
about the Bible.’—Dr. Lyman ABBOTT, in The Outlook. 

Crown 8vo. $2.50 neé. 


A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. 
By Artuur C. McGirrert, Ph.D., D.D. 


“The clearness, self-consistency, and force of the whole impression of 
Apostolic Christianity with which we leave this book goes far to guar- 
antee its permanent value and success.” —The Expositor. 

Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 


Christian Ethics. By NEwMAN SmytH, D.D. 


“As this book is the latest, so it is the fullest and most attractive treat- 
ment of the subject that we are familiar with. Patient and exhaustive 
in its method of inquiry, and stimulating and suggestive in the topic it 
handles, we are confident that it will be a help to the task of the moral 
understanding and interpretation of human life.”—The Living Church. 

Crown 8vo. tice net. 


Apologetics; or, Christianity Defensively Stated. 
By ALEXANDER BALMAIN Bruce, D.D. 


“We have not for a long time taken a book in hand that is more 
stimulating to faith. . . . Without commenting further, we repeat that 
this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced, and sharpest 
defence of Christianity that has ever been written. No theological 
library should be without it.”—Zzion’s Herald. 

Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 


Old Testament History. By Henry PRESERVED SuitH, D.D. 


“Prof. Smith has, by his comprehensive and vitalized history, laid all who 
care for the Old Testament under great obligations.” —The Inde pendent. 
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 


THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY 





VOLUMES NOW READY 


The Theology of the New Testament. By Gzoncr B. 
STEVENS, D.D., LL.D. 


“It is a fine example of painstaking, discriminating, impartial research 
and statement.”—The Congregationalist. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 


History of Christian Doctrine. By Grorce P. Fiser, 
D.D., LL.D. 
“Tt is only just to say that Dr. Fisher has produced the best History 
of Doctrine that we have in English.”—The New York Evangelist. 
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 


The Christian Pastor and the Working Church. 
By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., LL.D. 


“A comprehensive, inspiring and helpful guide to a busy pastor. One 
finds in it a multitude of practical suggestions for the development of 
the spiritual and working life of the Church, and the answer to many 
problems that are a constant perplexity to the faithful minister.” 
—The Christian Intelligencer. 


Crown 8yvo. $2.50 net. 


Christian Institutions. By ALEXANDER V. B. ALLEN, D.D. 


‘Professor Allen’s Christian Institutions may be regarded as the most 
important permanent contribution which the Protestant Episcopal 
Church of the United States has yet made to general theological 
thought.”—The American Journal of Theology. 


Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 


The Theology of the Old Testament. By A. B. Davinsoy, 
D:D; LEAD. DiTnit. 


“We hope every clergyman will not rest content until he has procured 
and studied this most admirable and useful book. Every really useful 
question relating to man—his nature, his fall, and his redemption, 
his present life or grace, his life after death, his future life, is 
treated of.”—The Canadian Churchman. Crown 8yo. $2.50 net. 


/ 
The Christian Doctrine of Salvation. By Gxoror B. 
Stevens, D.D., LL.D. 
“Professor Stevens has performed a task of great importance, certain to 
exert wide and helpful influence in settling the minds of men. He has 


treated the subject historically and has given to Christ the first place in 
interpreting his own mission.’””—Congregationalist and Christian World. 


Crown 8yo. $2.50 ned. 


THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY 


VOLUMES NOW READY 


The Ancient Catholic Church. sy Roserr Rawry, D.D.,LL.D. 


“As a comprehensive work on the formative stage of the Church’s ex- 
perience the volume will easily find its place in the front rank among 
books on the subject composed in the English language.” —T he Interior. 


Crown 8vo. . $2.50 net. 


The Reformation in Germany. By Tuomas M. Linpsay, 
MEA iD. 


“The arrangement of the book is most excellent, and while it is a 
worthy and scholarly account it is so arranged that for the student of 
the Reformation it is almost encyclopedic in its convenience and con- 
ciseness. It is a book no library, public or private, can really be 
without.” —Record of Christian Work. 


Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 








The Reformation in Lands Beyond Germany. By Txomas 
M. Lrypsay, D.D. 


“Together these two volumes will at once take their place as the clas- 
sical English History of the Reformation.”—The Expository Times. 


“The good balance of material which he has attained by a self-denying 
exclusion, as well as by much research and inclusion of fresh material, 
makes the work a real addition to our materials for study.” 

—The Congregationalist. 


Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 


Canon and Text of the New Testament. By Casper RENE 
Grecory, D.D., LL.D. 


“The book is a treasury of learning, and its fairness in dealing with the 
matter in hand is admirable. From first to last, the purpose of the 
author is not to show upon how slight basis our confidence in the can- 
onicity of the New Testament is based, but rather upon how solid a 
foundation our confidence rests.””—Journal and Messenger. 


Crown 8vo. $2.50 met. 


The Greek and Eastern Churches. sy Warree F. Avenry, 
M.A., D.D. 


“It seems to me an excellent and most useful piece of work. I do 
not know anything in English which covers the same ground and 
am sure Dr. Adeney has put us all in his debt by his scholarly, well- 
balanced and judicious treatment.”—Prof, William Adams Brown. 


Crown 8vo. $2.50 met. 


THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY 


VOLUMES NOW READY 


The Christian Doctrine of God. By Wiii1AM N. Crarxg, D.D. 


“The book is a treasury of learning, and its fairness in dealing with 
the matter in hand is admirable. From first to last, the purpose of the 
author is not to show upon how slight basis our confidence in the 
canonicity of the New Testament is based, but rather upon how solid 
a foundation our confidence rests.’”’-—Journal and Messenger. 


Crown 8yo. $2.50 net. 


An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testa- 
ment. By James Morrart, B.D., D.D. 


“Tn point of scholarship, breadth of treatment, and mastery of the prob- 
lems at issue, it will bear comparison with Driver’s companion volume 
on the literature of the Old Testament, than which no higher praise 
can be given. . . . The student will find in Dr. Moffatt’s volume the 
most complete presentation as yet attempted by any scholar of all that 
modern critical scholarship has done for the literature of the New 
Testament.’’—Scotsman. 


Crown 8vo. $2.50 net. 





















ay Ware, ri 
1 
aya | wie “Ee 
a's >‘ Ls @ Jy: 
kr ban i, 
al 2 
i ay. >. BAe 
Rf 
| i a hi pet. 
4 Te Set te a nal re gate tet D4 
r ee ha by 2 es ales ha a 
mee si. ae AN 


in) oe S 1 4 ‘ ey ¢ vi Nemec 
‘ae on ‘at ee eae ues 
a } , Lean Ar 2 us bpow hy ; “oS 


ia ee en. A sah i 
a Ages) he thy Ah 


j rr AS oo Wel) “ti aA h kiaele ae 
j (teh, ry iw 1 eeiyt wih es i tty 
Ft ee Laer Alen Os ki TMA, ai AAR Oe " bb 


io CAR i © 1 pea. ie eee bh 











UN 


o 
rs) 
® 
0 
c 
@ 





5 










{ 






ey 
TM | { 
Tt 








ik 
hs Wy 
r. 
f ie 





¥ |} 
ae \ 
LY 

< 


+e 0d ok 





| 





r 
C 
“ 








(— 
el 





EE 
4 i 
a ne 7 
Pa 
=) 





i 
ll 











2 
5 
= 





t 


cy( wpa" 


i : . 
i} | 
i , 
tad ists 








